Allowed

Samir Kerketta v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC24 Jul 2024CRLMC/2615/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa, allowing the CRLMC petition, set aside the non-bailable warrant issued against the petitioner due to notice gaps. The court directed the petitioner to pay Rs.1,000/- to the Advocates' Welfare Fund and appear in the bail matter within ten days.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the order dated 23.09.2023; petitioner to pay Rs.1,000/- and appear before J.M.F.C., Birmitrapur within ten days.

Samir Kerketta Vs State of Odisha — Bail and Remand | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.2615 of 2024

¶2

Samir Kerketta

¶3

..... Petitioner

¶4

Represented By Adv. - Soumya Ranjan Das

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State Of Odisha

¶7

..... Opposite Party

¶8

Represented By Adv. – Mr. P.C. Das, ASC

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ORDER

24.07.2024

Order No.

This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

¶16

Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Party. Perused the materials placed before this Court.

¶17

The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 23.09.2023 on which date the non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against him by the learned J.M.F.C., Birmitrapur in G.R. Case No.307 of 2019. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that initially the Petitioner was on bail since 02.03.2019, after which the Petitioner was appearing before the learned Court in seisin over the matter after he was released on bail. However, on one of the dates fixed for appearance, due to communication gap with his lawyer, the Petitioner was unable to appear since no step was taken to represent the petitioner by the counsel appearing for him. Thereafter, a non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued against the Petitioner. It was further contended that for the laches on the part of the counsel, the party should not be allowed to suffer.

¶18

Page 1 of 2.

¶19

Therefore, being aggrieved by such order the Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer to quash order dated 23.09.2023.

¶20

On perusal of the record, this Court is of the view that the trial court has not committed any illegality, however, in the larger interests of justice and in order to provide another opportunity to the Petitioner, this Court deems it proper to set aside the order dated 23.09.2023 by the learned J.M.F.C., Birmitrapur in G.R. Case No.307 of 2019, subject to payment of a cost of Rs.1,000/- by the Petitioner to the Advocates’ Welfare Fund of Local Bar Association within fifteen days and furnishing money receipt thereof in proof of deposit. Further, it is directed that the Petitioner shall appear before the learned J.M.F.C., Birmitrapur within ten days from today along with a copy of today’s order and shall continue to participate in the proceeding without any further default. In the event, the Petitioner makes any further default in appearance, it is open to the Court in seisin over the matter to take necessary coercive steps against the Petitioner.

¶21

In such view of the matter, the CRLMC is allowed.

¶22

( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge

¶23

S.K. Rout

¶24

Signature Not Verified

¶25

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 26-Jul-2024 19:51:51 Page 2 of 2.

Samir Kerketta v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samir Kerketta 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

Kailash Panda Vs State of Odisha

Runu Sagaria Vs State of Odisha

Nilakantha Behera Vs State of Odisha

Sarat Singh Vs State of Odisha

Ratha Nag @ Sabar Vs State of Odisha

Sanjay Kumar Panda Vs State of Odisha(Vig.)