Orissa High Court
Mahendra Parida @ Mahendra vs State Of Odisha on 12 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ABLAPL No.3256 of 2023
Mahendra Parida @ Mahendra
Kumar Parida & another .... Petitioners
Mr. P.K. Tripathy, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opp. Party
Mr. M.K. Mohanty, A.S.C.
CORAM:
JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
ORDER
Order No. 12.04.2023
01. 1. Heard the learned counsels for the Petitioners and the State.
2. Perused the case record. 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 offences U/s.
341/323/294/186/353/332/379/506/34, I.P.C. and Section 3(1) of
the S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act, 1989.
3. Peculiarity in this case is that the present Petitioners while
discharging their official duties as electrical staff are the subject
matter of the present F.I.R. The sole intention in the F.I.R. is to
sabotage the official functioning of the Petitioners who are duty
bound to collect revenue from those have defaulted in payment of
the charges against use of electricity. Subsequently however the
Petitioners have become the victim of the persons, who, by means
of this F.I.R. have tried to distract the officials not to pressurize
// 2 //
upon them to make payment of the arrear dues towards electricity
consumption.
4. Be that as it may, since the offence under Section 3 of the SC &
ST (PoA) Act has been arrayed against the present Petitioners, this
Court finds it not desirable to pass an order in favour of the
Petitioners, as 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.
5. 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 the Petitioners surrender and move for bail
before the learned court in seisin over the matter in Special
Case (Special Act Case) No.15 of 2023 arising out of
Chandili P.S. Case No.78 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
// 3 //
learned PP/Special PP as required by him for the purpose of
notice to the victim or his/her counsel or dependent.
(ii) 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.
6. The learned Court is further directed to consider the case of the
Petitioners in accordance with law upon verification of the
antecedents and injuries, if not grievous, and shall dispose of the
application on the very same day as far as possible, strictly on its
own merit.
7. The Court is also not precluded from granting any interim
protection to the Petitioners in appropriate circumstances but not in
a routine manner.
8. However, this order is subject to verification of criminal
antecedents of the Petitioners.
9. It is made clear that the court concerned is to apply its own
wisdom in allowing / rejecting the Petition for bail keeping in view
the gravity of the offence, circumstance of the crime and severity of
the punishment. The ABLAPL is disposed of accordingly.
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
S.K. Parida
