Orissa High Court
Jiten @ Jitendra Seth vs State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Party on 27 April, 2023
Author: Savitri Ratho
Bench: Savitri Ratho
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No. 1755 of 2023
Jiten @ Jitendra Seth ..... Petitioner
Mr. P.S. Nayak, Adv.
Vs.
State of Odisha ..... Opposite Party
Mr. D. Nayak, A.G.A.
CORAM:
JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
ORDER
27.04.2023 Order No. (Through hybrid mode)
01.
1. This application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed, challenging the order dated 28.10.2022 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bargarh in G.R. Case No. 560 of 2009 arising out of Bargarh Town P.S. Case No. 252 of 2009 dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner to substitute the sureties who had been directed to be blood relations of the petitioner by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, with local sureties.
2. Mr. P.S. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had been granted bail vide order dated 09.09.2009 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bargarh in B.A. No. 401 of 2009 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.30,000/- with two Sukanta solvent sureties for the like amount and both sureties were to be the blood relations of the petitioner. In compliance of the order, one Bhagabati Pradhan, W/o. Kumar Pradhan, resident of Halpada, P.S. Bargarh Town, Dist.- Bargarh and Hemanta Seth, S/o. Nabin Seth resident of Ward No.3, Hatapada, P.S. Bargarh Town, Dist.- Bargarh had stood surety for the petitioner and the Page 1 of 2 petitioner had been released on bail by the learned S.D.J.M., Bargarh on 10.09.2009. He further submits that the petitioner has not defaulted in appearance on any date before the learned Magistrate since 2009 and as the two sureties namely Bhagabati Pradhan and Hemanta Seth expired in the meanwhile, the petitioner had filed an application before the learned S.D.J.M., Bargarh to substitute the said sureties with two other local sureties (not blood relation). But the said application has been rejected by the learned Magistrate on the ground that no death certificate has been filed in respect of the two sureties and he does the power to alter or modify the order passed by the higher Court.
3. The impugned order does not call for any interference.
4. In view of the lapse of almost fourteen years since the petitioner was granted bail and the death of the two relations of the petitioner who had stood as sureties, the CRLMC is disposed of permitting the petitioner to file an application before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bargarh for modification of order dated 09.09.2009 passed in B.A. No. 401 of 2009. If such an application is filed by 12.05.2023, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. It shall be considered sympathetically, if the learned Sessions Judge finds that the petitioner has not defaulted in appearance in the case on any date after he was released on bail.
Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
..............................
(SAVITRI RATHO) JUDGE Page 2 of 2