Orissa High Court
Huluka Siu vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 23 June, 2021
Author: S. K. Panigrahi
Bench: S. K. Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ABLAPL No. 6284 of 2021
Huluka Siu .... Petitioner
Mr. Jajati Keshari Khuntia, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. P. K. Maharaj, Additional Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE S. K. PANIGRAHI
ORDER
Order No. 23.06.2021
03. 1. This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.
2. This is an application under Section 438 of the Cr. P.C.
3. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
4. The petitioner in this case apprehending his arrest in Narayanpatna PS Case No. 13 of 2013 corresponding to GR Case No. 83(A) of 2013, pending in the court of learned SDJM, Laxmipur, registered for alleged commission of offences under Sections 447, 294 and 506/34 of the IPC, has filed this petition for his release on anticipatory bail.
4. The case of the informant as revealed from the FIR, in short, is that on 21.06.2013, he along with other persons had been to paddy field of Narayan Padhi. While they were working in the paddy field, at that time, about 50 members of Chasi Mulia Adibasi Sangha including the petitioner came and abused him in obscene languages. They told to the informant that the said cultivated land // 2 // was theirs. The petitioner criminally intimidated them and surrounded them from all sides armed with axe and spade etc. When the evicted family members came to the spot then they fled away from the spot.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no specific allegation with regard to assault. The petitioner has never participated in the incident but he has been implicated in this case at the instance of the police. Charge-sheet has already been submitted.
6. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
7. Regard being had to the facts and submissions, made especially the nature of accusation, character of supporting materials appearing against the petitioner in support of the charge, circumstances in which the offence alleged to have been committed, this Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on anticipatory bail.
8. Accordingly, the ABLAPL stands rejected.
9. As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of the order available in the High Court's website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court's Notice No.4798, dated 15th April, 2021.
(S. K. Panigrahi) Judge AKP Page 2 of 2