Dhruba Charan Mallik vs State Of Odisha And Others ... Opposite ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 3074 Ori

Orissa High Court

Dhruba Charan Mallik vs State Of Odisha And Others ... Opposite ... on 29 January, 2025

Author: G. Satapathy

Bench: G. Satapathy

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                   CRLMA No.213 of 2024

   (In the matter of application under Section 439(2) of
   the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973).

   Dhruba Charan Mallik                 ...         Petitioner
                             -versus-

   State of Odisha and others           ...   Opposite Parties

   For Petitioner              : Mr. J.K. Panda, Advocate

   For Opposite Parties        : Mr. M.K. Mohanty,
                                 Addl. PP

       CORAM:
                   JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

  F DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:29.01.2025(ORAL)

G. Satapathy, J.

1. This CRLMA by the petitioner is intended to

cancel the bail granted to OPNos.2 to 5 by the learned

JMFC, Pipili.

2. Heard, Mr. Jugala Kishore Panda, learned

counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.K. Mohanty,

learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the

record.

3. It is not disputed that on 31.07.2020, the

learned JMFC, Pipili had granted bail to OPNos.2 to 5 in

GR Case No.272 of 2020, but against such order, the

petitioner had approached the learned Sessions Judge,

Puri in Criminal Misc. Case No.34 of 2022, which was

disposed on 04.11.2024 dismissing the claim of the

petitioner. Being aggrieved with such order, the

petitioner has preferred this application.

4. The fact further is not in dispute that even

after five years, the petitioner still seeks for a prayer

for cancellation of bail granted to OPNos.2 to 5 and that

too, for offences triable by Magistrate First Class. The

sole plea as advanced by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that at the time of consideration of bail, the

injury report of the petitioner was never considered by

the learned JMFC, Pipili and, therefore, the grant of bail

to the OPNos.2 to 5 appears to be contrary to the

principle of law and equity. However, such plea at this

stage is not tenable, especially when the cancellation of

bail is sought for after five years of the occurrence. The

plea as advanced by the petitioner can also be agitated

before the learned trial Court at appropriate stage for

prove of the injury of the petitioner for securing the

guilt of the accused persons, however, at this point of

time, cancelling the bail of OPNos.2 to 5 would

definitely cause hardship to them.

5. In view of the aforesaid facts and

circumstances and taking into account the fact that the

bail order was granted way back before five years for

offences exclusively triable by Magistrate First-class,

this Court does not consider it proper to interfere with

the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge or by

the learned trial Court.

6. Accordingly, the present CRLMA being

devoid of merit stands dismissed.

(G. Satapathy) Judge

Location: High Court of Orissa

Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 29th day of January, 2025/Subhasmita