Orissa High Court
Pabitra Bastia & Others vs State Of Odisha on 4 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ABLAPL No.2143 of 2023
Pabitra Bastia & Others .... Petitioners
Mr. R.K. Pradhan, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. Debasish Biswal, A.S.C.
CORAM:
JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
ORDER
Order No. 04.04.2023
02. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the State.
2. By means of this application, the Petitioners seek grant of bail
U/s.438, Cr.P.C. in apprehension of arrest for their alleged
involvement in the offence U/s.452/294/323/354/436/427/506/379/
336/34, I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(r),3(1)(s)&3(2)(va) of the Scheduled
Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
(Amendment 2015) in connection with Kujang P.S. Case No.88 of
2023 corresponding to Special G.R. Case No.11 of 2023 pending in
the court of the learned Addl. District Judge, Kujang.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the State that Petitioner
Nos.1, 2 & 5 are having three, four and two criminal antecedents
respectively to their credits.
4. Considering the aforesaid facts and having regard to the nature of
the allegations as attributed against the Petitioners and the
seriousness and gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to
grant anticipatory bail in favour of Petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 5 -
// 2 //
namely Pabitra Bastia, Dillip Kumar Bastia and Rania Bastia.
Accordingly, the prayer for bail in respect of Petitioner Nos.1, 2 and
5 stands rejected.
5. So far as Petitioner Nos.3, 4 & 6 - namely Bivan Bastia, Amiya
Beura and Tuni @ Sarala Bastia respectively are concerned, in view
of the bar under Sections 18 and 18-A of the SC & ST (PA) Act, the
present application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. is not maintainable.
The issue has been examined by the Apex Court in the matter of
Prithviraj Chauhan v. Union of India and Others, reported in
(2020) 1 OLR SC 419. In paragraph-10 of the said judgment, it has
been held that the provision of Section 438, Cr.P.C. shall not apply to
the case involving offence under SC & ST (PA) Act, 1989. While
saying so the Apex Court has further observed that, if the complaint
does not make out a prima facie case or applicability of the provision
of the Act, the bar created by Sections 18 & 18-A of the Act shall not
apply.
6. Further, this Court in Pramod Kumar Ray and others v. State of
Orissa, reported in (2017) 67 OCR 309, in the light of the principles
laid down by the Apex Court, reiterated the same principles. Hence,
this present application is disposed of with the following observation.
(i) In the event these Petitioners surrender and move for bail before
the learned Addl. District Judge, Kujang in the aforesaid Special
G.R. Case No.11 of 2023 within three weeks from today, before
the court in seisin over the matter the Petitioners shall serve copy
of the bail application on the learned PP/Special PP as required
by him for the purpose of notice to the victim or his/her counsel
or dependent.
// 3 //
(i) It is further directed that, on advance intimation, the Case
Diary and other relevant materials be made available to the
concerned court by the date of surrender.
7. The learned Court is further directed to consider the case of the
Petitioners Nos.3, 4 & 6 in accordance with law and shall dispose of
their application on the very same day itself as far as possible,
strictly on its own merit. The Court is also not precluded from
granting any interim protection to the Petitioners in appropriate
circumstances but not in a routine manner.
8. It is made clear that the court concerned is to apply its own
wisdom in allowing / rejecting the prayer for bail, having regard to
the criminal antecedents of the Petitioners. The ABLAPL is disposed
of accordingly.
( Chittaranjan Dash )
Judge
S.K.Parida
