Disposed

Sharmila Sen v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC2 Sept 2024CRLMA/493/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Informant sought cancellation of bail granted to the accused for concealing a pending High Court bail application while obtaining bail before the trial court. The court found concealment and sharp practice but declined to cancel bail, imposing Rs.75,000 exemplary costs on the accused.

What did the court decide?

Cancellation refused; exemplary cost of Rs.75,000 imposed on opposite party no.2, to be deposited before the trial court within fifteen days and disbursed to the informant.

Sharmila Sen Vs State of Odisha — Bail and Remand | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLMA No.493 of 2023

¶3

Sharmila Sen

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Ms. Bini Mishra, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha & another …. Opp. Parties

¶8

Mr. B.K. Ragada, AGA Mr. D. Panda, Advocate for opposite party no.2

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

Order

No.

ORDER 02.09.2024

1. Heard Ms. Bini Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B.K. Ragada, learned Additional Government Advocate and Mr. Devashis Panda, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

¶16

2. The petitioner is the informant in connection with Mangalabag P.S. Case No.114 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No.334 of 2023 pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C. (City), Cuttack. The petitioner is seeking cancellation of bail granted to O.P.No 2 vide the order dated 16.11.2023 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Cuttack on the ground that the opposite party no.2 has concealed material facts from the court. At the time when the bail application was moved before the learned Court below, one bail

¶17

application was pending before this Court, to that effect no declaration was made.

¶18

On 16.11.2023, the petitioner withdrew the bail application from this court and On the same day the application for bail appears to have been moved before trial court. The Coordinate Bench of this Court passed the following order on 16.11.2023:

¶19

“1. This is an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with Mangalabag P.S. Case No.114 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No.334 of 2023, pending in the file of the learned J.M.F.C.(City), Cuttack under Sections 419, 420, 403, 120 (B), 506, 34 of IPC.

¶20

2. A memo has been filed by Mr. K.C.Behera, learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the petitioner does not want to press this bail application. The said memo is taken on record.

¶21

3. Considering the above submission, the BLAPL is dismissed as not pressed.

¶22

4. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules.

¶23

5. A copy of this order be sent to the learned J.M.F.C.(City), Cuttack by the Registry.”

¶24

3. This Court sought for a report from the learned J.M.F.C. (City), Cuttack. The learned Court below vide its report dated 10.05.2024 informed this court as under:

¶25

On 07.11.2023 G.R. Case No.334 of 2023 was received from Court of Ld. J.M.F.C. (City), Cuttack since the accused Samir Khan was an Under Trial Prisoner (UTP) and this Court being designated Court to try the UTP cases. Since then this court is in seisin over G.R. Case No.334 of 2023.

¶26

On 16.11.2023 the Ld. Defence counsel filed a

¶27

petition to release the accused Samir Khan on bail in G.R. Case No.334 of 2023 arising out of Mangalabag P.S. Case No.114 dt.26.04.2023.

¶28

In the bail petition it was not mentioned, that a bail petition was pending in any other court including the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa.

¶29

Further, at the time of hearing Ld. Defence counsel also filed a Memo stating that no bail petition is pending in any court having jurisdiction.

¶30

Moreover, during the hearing of Bail petition it was not disclosed to the Court that Bail petition in respect of the said accused was pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa.”

¶31

4. Perusal of the report indicates that there was apparent concealment on the part of the petitioner on the day when he filed the petition before the learned trial Court. Tactfully the petitioner withdrew the application from this court. It cannot be ascertained from the record that at what time the bail application was moved by the petitioner before the leaned trial Court. Undoubtedly this a case of sharp practice adopted by the petitioner.

¶32

5. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that at 2.00 P.M. the bail application was moved by the petitioner before the learned trial Court while the bail application pending before this Court was withdrawn in the first session, but nothing is illuminating from the record regarding the same.

¶33

6. Regard being had to the report submitted by the learned Court below, I am of the considered view that there is apparent concealment of the material fact before the Court. Be that as it may, I am not inclined to cancel the bail granted to the opposite party no.2 by the learned trial Court while exercising the discretionary jurisdiction on merits. At the same time I agree with the contention raised by Ms. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and incline to impose exemplary cost on the opposite party no.2 for sharp practice apparently adopted by him.

¶34

7. Accordingly, I imposed exemplary cost of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand) on the opposite party No 2, which shall be deposited before the learned trial Court within fifteen days from today and the same shall be disbursed to the informant. 8. Ms. Mishra further submits that the opposite party no.2 has violated the condition of bail imposed by the leaned trial Court. If she has any grievance of same or similar nature, she may move the learned trial Court. If any such application is moved by the petitioner the court below shall consider the same on its merit.

¶35

9. The CRLMA is accordingly disposed of.

¶36

Signature Not Verified

¶37

(S.S. Mishra)

¶38

Digitally Signed Signed by: AMIT KUMAR MOHANTY Reason: Authentication Judge Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CU TTACK Date: 03-Sep-2024 17:35:03 amit

Sharmila Sen v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharmila Sen v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sabita Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Sukru Kalaka Vs State of Odisha

Swadhin Kumar Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Pralaya Bhoi Vs State of Odisha

Jadu @ Hemasagar Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Ranjan @ Manoranjan Bhue @ Bhai Vs State of Odisha