Orissa High Court
Nishakara Bira vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 27 September, 2021
Author: S.Pujahari
Bench: S.Pujahari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ABLAPL No.9669 of 2021
Nishakara Bira .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
CORAM: JUSTICE S.PUJAHARI
ORDER
Order 27.09.2021 No. 02. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. The Petitioner apprehending his arrest in R.Udayagiri P.S. Case No.58 of 2021, registered for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 147/148/323/324/307/186/ 353/332/294/342/506/269/270/149 of the I.P.C., Section 51(b) of the D.M. Act, Section 3(1) of E.D. Act, Sections 3(1)(r)(s)/3(2)(va) of S.C. & S.T.(PoA) Act and Section 3 of PDPP Act, has filed this petition for his release on pre-arrest bail.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.
4. The prosecution allegation is that violating the Covid-19 norms, the Petitioner had congregated in large number in a marriage ceremony and when the Government officials went there to give effect to the Covid-19 regulation, some of whom Page 1 of 3 // 2 // were belonging to Scheduled Tribe, they were abused and assaulted by the people who were there. Hence, the case against the Petitioner.
5. The aforesaid does not reveal that the alleged abuse and assault was made on Scheduled Tribe Government official, i.e. Police taking note of that fact that they belong to Scheduled Tribe or it was known to accused persons. The Tahasildar who was also there and some others were also neither belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Hence, from the same prima facie no offence under S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act is made out. Therefore, this petition for pre-arrest bail is not hit by the prohibition under Section 18 of the S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act. Hence, the same is entertained. It appears that no major injury was sustained by any of the injured. The incident occurred when the Government official intervened in a marriage ceremony to enforce the Covid-19 norms and restrictions. The act was not pre-planned.
6. Hence, on consideration of the aforesaid facts and submissions made, especially the nature and character of allegations including the accusation under Section 307 of I.P.C., circumstances in which the offences stated to have been committed and also it being not disputed that the Petitioner's release on pre-arrest bail shall not be an hindrance to a free and fair investigation, this Court is of the view that the Petitioner has made out a case for his release on pre-arrest bail, more particularly when he is ready and willing to cooperate with the Page 2 of 3 // 3 // investigation and he has no chance of absconding and/or tampering with the prosecution evidence, if released on pre- arrest bail.
7. Therefore, this Court directs that in the event of arrest of the Petitioner in connection with the aforesaid case, he be released on bail by the Officer effecting arrest on such terms and conditions as deemed just and proper including the conditions that he shall cooperate with the investigation, shall not indulge himself in any criminal activity and shall not make any contact or terrorize the prosecution witnesses in any manner. Violation of the conditions shall entail cancellation of bail. It is also made clear that if any other graver offence than the aforesaid offences is found to be there against the Petitioner, this order shall not be given effect to.
8. The ABLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of being allowed.
9. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.
(S. Pujahari) Judge RKS Page 3 of 3