Crl. A. No. 1287/2014 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8726 of 2013), Crl. A. No. 1288/2014 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1402 of 2014), Crl. A. No. 1289/2014 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1404 of 2014), Crl. A. No. 1290/2014 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1405 of 2014), Crl. A. No. 1291/2014 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1406 of 2014), Crl. A.... Case: Artatran Baliar Singh Vs State of Orissa. Supreme Court (India)
| Case Number | Crl. A. No. 1287/2014 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8726 of 2013), Crl. A. No. 1288/2014 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1402 of 2014), Crl. A. No. 1289/2014 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1404 of 2014), Crl. A. No. 1290/2014 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1405 of 2014), Crl. A. No. 1291/2014 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1406 of 2014), Crl. A... |
| Judges | Ranjan Gogoi and M. Yusuf Eqbal, JJ. |
| Issue | Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Section 302 |
| Citation | 2014 (8) SCALE 405 |
| Judgement Date | July 01, 2014 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
Judgment:
SLP (CRL.) NO. 8726 OF 2013
-
Leave granted. Respondents Nos. 2 to 5, namely, Sangram Keshan Nayak, Lenin Ku. Baliarsingh, Narendra Baliarsingh and Sushanta Pradhan @ Sukanta Pradhan, had sought pre-arrest bail which was rejected by the High Court by its order dated 19th March, 2013. However, by the same order, the High Court directed the Respondents-accused to surrender before the learned trial Court and further directed the learned trial Court to release them on bail. Aggrieved, the complainant has filed the present appeal.
-
We have perused the First Information Report (FIR) which is on record and have considered the allegations made against the Respondents-accused. The offence alleged in the FIR against the said accused is, inter alia, Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Once the High Court had refused pre-arrest bail, there could have been no occasion to pass the subsequent directions, namely, that the accused should surrender and upon such surrender, the learned trial Court should release them on bail.
-
Accordingly, we are of the view that the aforesaid order passed by the High Court calls the interference. The said directions issued by the High Court in its order dated 19th March, 2013 passed in BLAPL No. 1006 of 2013 are, therefore, set aside and Respondents Nos. 2 to 5, namely, Sangram Keshari Nayak, Lenin Ku. Baliarsingh, Narendra Baliarsingh and Sushanta Pradhan @ Sukanta Pradhan, are directed to be taken into custody forthwith.
-
We also make it clear that this Order will not be a bar for the accused Respondents to seek regular bail, which will be considered by the learned competent Court on its own merit and in accordance with law.
-
The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
SLP (CRL.) NO. 1402 OF 2014
-
Leave granted.
-
Respondent No. 2, namely, Judhistir Nayak, had sought pre-arrest bail which was rejected by the High Court by its order dated 3rd May, 2013. However, by the same order, the High Court directed the Respondent-accused to surrender before the learned trial Court and further directed the learned trial Court to release him on bail. Aggrieved, the complainant has filed the present appeal.
-
We have perused the First Information Report (FIR) which is on record and have considered the allegations made against the Respondent-accused. The offence alleged in the FIR against the said accused is, inter alia, Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Once the High Court had refused pre-arrest bail, there could have been no occasion to pass the subsequent directions, namely, that the accused should surrender and upon such surrender, the learned trial Court should release him on bail.
-
Accordingly, we are of the view that the aforesaid order passed by the High Court calls the interference. The said directions issued by the High Court in its order dated 3rd May, 2013 passed in BLAPL No. 6009 of 2013 are, therefore, set aside and Respondent No. 2, namely, Judhistir Nayak, is directed to be taken into custody forthwith.
-
We also make it clear that this Order will not be a bar for the accused Respondent to seek regular bail, which will be considered by the learned competent Court on its own merit and in accordance with law.
-
The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
SLP (CRL.) NO. 1404 OF 2014
-
Leave granted.
-
Respondent No. 2, namely, Kailash Chandra Nayak, had sought pre-arrest bail which was rejected by the High Court by its order dated 14th May, 2013. However, by the same order, the High Court directed the Respondent-accused to surrender before the learned trial Court and further directed the learned trial Court to release him on bail. Aggrieved, the complainant has filed the present appeal.
-
We have perused the First Information. Report (FIR) which is on record and have considered the allegations made against the Respondent-accused. The offence alleged in the FIR against the said accused is, inter alia, Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Once the High Court had refused pre-arrest bail, there could have been no occasion to pass the subsequent directions, namely, that the accused should surrender and upon such surrender, the learned trial Court should release him on bail.
-
Accordingly, we are of the view that the aforesaid order passed by the High Court calls the interference. The said directions issued by the High Court in its order dated 14th May, 2013 passed in BLAPL No. 9662 of 2013 are, therefore, set aside and Respondent No. 2, namely, Kailash Chandra Nayak, is directed to be taken into custody forthwith.
-
We also make it clear that this Order will not be a bar for the accused Respondent to seek regular bail, which will be considered by the learned competent Court on its own merit and in accordance...
To continue reading
Request your trial