Orissa High Court
Aravinda @ Arubdam Oabda @ vs State Of Odisha on 14 November, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMA No.281 of 2022
Aravinda @ Arubdam Oabda @ .... Petitioner
Arabinda Panda
Mr. S. Behera, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. P.K. Maharaj, ASC
CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
ORDER
14.11.2022
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for
the State
3. Order dated 27.08.2022 passed by the learned 1st Addl. District
& Sessions Judge, Baripada, inter alia, directing the Petitioner to furnish
cash security of Rs.3,00,000/- (rupees three lakhs) as condition no.iv
while enlarging him on bail in B.A. No.375 of 2022 arising out of Udala
P.S. Case No.191 of 2022 is the subject-matter of challenge in the
present CRLMA.
4. Petitioner is an accused in C.T. Case No.531 of 2022 pending
on the file of learned S.D.J.M. Udala under Sections 403/406/420/506
IPC and he is in custody since 10.06.2022. Considering the prayer of the
learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned Court below was pleased to
enlarge him on bail and while doing so, directed for deposit of cash
security of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs), as one of the conditions.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that
imposition of cash security Rs.3,00,000/- (rupees three lakhs), as a
condition of bail, virtually amounts to denial of bail.
6. It is apt to state here that this Court in the case of Pintu @
Sanjeev Chakrabarti v. State of Orissa reported in 2004 (1) OLR 558
referring to the judgment passed by the apex Court has clearly
enunciated the law that Court while granting bail should ensure not to
impose the cash security as a condition precedent for enlarging the
accused on bail as consequently for non-fulfillment of such condition the
accused cannot be released.
7. It needs no emphasis that right to be released on bail, in an
appropriate case has been considered to be a facet of Article 21 of the
Constitution. Hence, time and again, the apex Court and this Court has
expressed the concern and fixed the guidelines that while granting bail,
the court ought not to act as a collecting agent.
8. In imposing the cash security, learned Court in seisin has lost
sight of such salutary principle.
9. Taking into account the law laid down in the case of Pintu @
Sanjeev Chakrabarti (supra), to sub serve the ends of justice, this Court
modifies the impugned condition No.iv and directs that instead of cash
security of Rs.3,00,000/- (rupees three lakhs), the Petitioner has to
furnish property security of Rs.3,00,000/- (rupees three lakhs) which
shall be pledged in favour of the learned S.D.J.M., Udala and the same
shall be abide by the result of the trial.
10. Other stipulations in the said impugned order remain unaltered.
11. Accordingly, the CRLMA stands disposed of.
12. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules.
(V. NARASINGH)
Judge
PKS
