The High Court allowed pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, holding that custodial interrogation is not necessary. The petitioner was directed to surrender within three weeks and obtain bail from the JMFC.
Petitioner to surrender within three weeks and move for bail; Court in seisin to release on bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ABLAPL No. 5023 of 2025
Tapan Kumar Pradhan
Petitioner
Mr. D. Das, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha
…. Opposite Party
Mr. S. Panigrahi, ASC
CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
ORDER
17.07.2025
Order No.
01.
Page 1 of 2
institution of the same is not being explained and in the given fact the same has bearing on the merit of the allegations.
(V. NARASINGH) Judge
Ayesha
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: AYESHA ROUT Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 18-Jul-2025 18:19:25
Page 2 of 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail in offences punishable under Sections 407, 420, and 34 of the IPC.
Whether custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for the instant case.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Tapan Kumar Pradhan
State of Odisha
V. Narasimh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
