High CourtsSingle Bench

Raghu @ Raghunath Mishra vs State Of Odisha

Orissa High Court · Decided on 21 June 2024 · Citation: (2024) 06 OHC CK 0009

HON’BLE JUDGES
A.K. Mohapatra, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 420
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 6045 Of 2024
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

12 paragraphs · 503 words

A.K. Mohapatra, J

1.

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

2.

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.

3.

The present bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the Petitioner for regular bail in connection with G.R. Case No.419 of 2023, arising out of Angul P.S Case No.156 of 2023, pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M, Angul for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 420/34 of I.P.C.

4.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that earlier this matter was not before any other Bench of this Court. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner is in custody since 16.02.2024. He further contended that the investigation has been concluded and final charge sheet has been filed. He further contended that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case because there is no evidence that the informant had handed over money to the Petitioner. He further contended that the Petitioner has only one criminal antecedent. In such view of the matter learned counsel for the Petitioner contended the Petitioner be released on bail on such terms and conditions as this Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

5.

Learned Additional Standing Counsel on the other hand opposed the bail application of the Petitioner on the ground that the allegations made in the F.I.R. are very serious in nature. Further, in the event the Petitioner is released on bail, he might abscond. Therefore, on such ground, learned counsel for the State submitted that the bail application of the Petitioner be rejected at this juncture.

6.

Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on careful consideration of the surrounding facts as well as materials on record, this Court is inclined to release the Petitioner on bail subject to imposition of stringent conditions.

7.

Hence, it is directed that the Petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand) with two local solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned court in seisin over the matter.

8.

It is open for the Court in seisin over the matter to impose any other conditions as may be deemed just and proper. Violation of any condition shall cancellation of the bail application.

9.

It is further directed that the bail granted to the Petitioner is subject to depositing a cash security of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousands) of before the learned Court in seisin over the matter, which shall be kept in any Nationalized bank in interest bearing account initially for a period of one year which will be renewable from time to time till conclusion of trial and the same shall be abide by the final outcome of the trial of the case.

10.

The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of.

..…………………………..