Sameer Srivastava vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party
2025 Latest Caselaw 4599 Ori

Orissa High Court

Sameer Srivastava vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 4 March, 2025

Author: V. Narasingh

Bench: V. Narasingh

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                           ABLAPL No. 1541 of 2025

             Sameer Srivastava               ....            Petitioner

                                            Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate

                                     -versus-

             State of Odisha                 ....      Opposite Party
                                                  Mr. S.K. Lenka, ASC

                          CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

                                   ORDER

04.03.2025 Order No.

03. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. This ABLAPL has been filed apprehending arrest consequential to an FIR likely to be instituted before the Markat Nagar Phase-II Police Station, Cuttack, Odisha.

3. Learned counsel for the State, on instruction, submits that no FIR in the case at hand has been instituted.

4. It is trite law that even in the absence of an FIR the anticipatory bail application can be moved, if there is reasonable apprehension of arrest. The reference in this regard is respectfully made to the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of

Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Others Vrs. State of Punjab, reported in (1980) 2 SCC 565 and reiterated in the case of Dhanraj Aswani vs. Amar S. Mulchandani & Ors. reported in (2024) 10 SCC

336.

5. Learned counsel for the State, on instruction, submits that the Petitioner has no criminal proclivity.

6. The instruction, regarding criminal proclivity of the Petitioner, submitted by the learned counsel for the State is taken on record.

7. On instruction, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that though no FIR has been registered, but he is being repeatedly called over telephone and pressure is being exerted to settle the matter with one Tusar Kumar Sahoo and Pradeep Kumar Sahoo with whom he had business transaction and in evidencing thereof, tax invoices of Kalinga Polymers Pvt. Ltd., which belongs to the above two persons, are placed on record. And, it is stated that the Petitioners are the proprietors of the said Savitri Oils which is reflected as recipients in the said tax invoice.

8. Considering the nature of submissions made, the ABLAPL is disposed of giving liberty to the Petitioner to renew his prayer at a later stage, if there is any perceptible threat of arrest, since prima facie

this Court finds that even if the apprehension of the Petitioner is accepted at its face value the punishment prescribed would be less than 7 years.

(V. NARASINGH) Judge Santoshi

Designation: Senior Stenographer

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 06-Mar-2025 11:48:27