Orissa High Court
) Jaleswar Naik vs State Of Odisha ….. Opposite Party on 19 December, 2024
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ABLAPL No.11508 of 2024
1) Jaleswar Naik ..... Petitioners
2) Padaman Naik Represented By Adv. -
3) Lai Majhi Prasanta Kumar Jena
4) Govinda Majhi
5) Subasingh Majhi
6) Laxman Majhi
7) Hiramal Naik
8) Shyam Kumar Naik
9) Kantilal Naik
-versus-
State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Party
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. M.R.Patra, A.S.C.
Mr Subir Palit, M/s
Gokulananda Sahu,
Sritam Mohanty
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 19.12.2024
04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the
records.
3. The Petitioners are apprehending arrest for the alleged
commission of offence under Sections 147/ 148/ 341/ 323/ 324/ 307/
294/ 427/ 395/ 506/149 of I.P.C. in G.R.Case No.45/2024 of the
Court of the learned J.M.F.C., Kashipur, arising out of Kasipur PS
case No. 12 dated 12.01.2024.
Page 1 of 5.
4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the
petitioners, who basically belong to the tribal community, have had
their land acquired for the purpose of establishment of a factory in
the district of Rayagda. The petitioners are protesting lawfully for
payment of compensation for the acquisition of their land. He further
contended that even though the petitioners have been protesting
lawfully, they have been falsely implicated at the instance of the
company in question. Learned counsel for the petitioners further
submitted that there are no specific allegations of commission of any
overt act on the part of the present petitioners. He further contended
that several false cases have been registered at the instance of the
company to restrain the petitioners from leading to any arbitration
against the company with regard to non-payment of compensation
amount. He further argued that in the process the lawful and
democratic right of the petitioners to raise their voice and protest
against the illegal action of the authorities and the company involved
in the present case is being taken away by implicating them in a
plethora of false cases, including the present one. He further
submitted that the petitioners belong to the locality, therefore there is
no chance of their absconding. On such grounds, learned counsel for
the petitioners submitted that petitioners be released on pre-arrest bail
on any stringent terms and condition which the petitioners undertake
to abide by while on bail.
5. Mr. S.Palit, learned senior counsel for the informant on the
other hand objected to release the petitioners on bail. He further
contended that the injured has sustained grievous injuries and in the
said context he referred to the injury report. He further submitted that
the petitioners are belonging in the locality as a result of which the
company which has invested huge amounts of money is unable to
Page 2 of 5.
operate the mines. As a result of the same the company has incurred
huge losses. He further submitted there are several criminal
antecedents against the present petitioners including one that has
been registered after they were protected by interim order of this
Court. On such circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that the petitioners do not deserve to be enlarged on pre-
arrest bail at this stage.
6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand objected to the
release of the petitioners on bail on the ground that the allegations
made in the F.I.R. are grave and serious in nature. He further
submitted that the injured has sustained grievous injuries. Learned
counsel for the State further contended that the conduct of the
petitioners has given rise to discord and disruption of the public order
in the locality. He further expresses his apprehension regarding the
release of the petitioners on pre-arrest bail on the ground that there is
every likelihood that the petitioners might indulge in similar criminal
offences if enlarged at this stage. He also contended that
investigation is still on therefore, the release of the petitioners
would cause delay in conclusion of the investigation.
7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective
parties on a careful examination of the case diary as well as materials
on record and further taking note of the surrounding facts and
circumstances as well as the statement of the injured recorded under
Section 164 Cr.P.C., this Court observes that although the petitioners
have been named in the F.I.R. as well as in the 164 statement to be
present at the spot of occurrence. However, the injured has
categorically stated in his 164 statement that all the petitioners except
Shyam Sundar Naik @ Shyam Kumar Naik have assaulted by means
of fist blows. So far as the accused Shyam Sundar Naik @ Shyam
Page 3 of 5.
Kumar Naik is concerned, it is alleged by the injured that he has
assaulted by means of a stone, causing bleeding injuries. The medical
examination report confirms the fact that the injured has sustained
bleeding injury on his head, which corresponds to the allegation
made by the injured in his 164 statement.
8. Taking into consideration the entirety of the prosecution
allegation as well as the materials on record, although this Court is
not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, however it is
directed that in the event the petitioners, except Petitioner No.8,
surrender and move for bail within a period of four weeks from
today, they shall be released on bail on such terms and conditions as
the learned Magistrate may deem just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case, but subject to verification of criminal
antecedent of the Petitioners except Petitioner No.8. In the event it
is found by the learned court below that the Petitioners are having
more than two criminal antecedents, then this order shall
automatically stand revoked with regard to those Petitioners.
9. The release of the petitioners except Petitioner No.8 shall
also be subject to following conditions:-
I) shall cooperate with the investigation and appear before
the I.O. as and when their presence is required and shall
cooperate with the early conclusion of the investigation.
II) shall not indulge in similar criminal offences while on
bail.
III) shall not enter the factory premises and shall not come
within a radius of 500 meters of the company premises.
IV) Shall appear before the local Police Station once in a
Page 4 of 5.
fortnight for a period of four months preferably on
‘Sunday’ in between 10.00 A.M. to 1.00 P.M. till
conclusion of the trial.
10. Furthermore, on the submission of the learned counsel, so far
as the Petitioner No.8 is concerned, he is given liberty to surrender
before the learned J.M.F.C., Kashipur in the aforesaid case in the first
hour within 21 working days hence and move for bail. On such event,
the learned Magistrate shall consider his application for bail in the
first hour strictly on the basis of the materials on record. In case of
rejection of the bail application, the Petitioner No.8 may move for
bail before the higher forum in the second hour. On such event, the
higher forum shall consider and dispose of the bail application of the
Petitioner No.8 on the same day strictly on the basis of the materials
on record, by maintaining the principles of parity, if applicable.
11. Case Diary be made available to the concerned courts. Records
be transmitted to the higher forum at the cost of the Petitioner No.8,
if applied for.
12. The ABLAPL is accordingly disposed of.
13. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules.
( A.K Mohapatra )
Judge
Rubi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: RUBI BEHERA
Reason: Authentication Page 5 of 5.
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 23-Dec-2024 10:42:46