STATE OF ORISSA Vs. MALAYA KUMAR MUND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed by the State Under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking cancellation of bail of the petitioners who are facing trial in G.R. Case No. 393 of 1990 in the Court of the S.D.J.M., Bhawanipatna for offences Under Sections 147, 148, 307 and 149, IPC. The indictment which the opposite parties are facing is that on 3 -12 -1990 when the Chief Minister of the State was visiting Bhawanipatna the opposite parties and some others numbering about 15 to 20 belonging to Yuba Congress shouted slogans against him, showed black flags and coming to his car pelted stones at him causing injury to his nose. The miscreants ran away on being chased by police but two of them, namely, Basanta Kumar Panda and Pradeep Behera, were caught hold of by the police. Subsequently the opposite parties were arrested and forwarded to the Court. Their application for bail having been rejected by the S.D.J.M,, they moved the Sessions Judge who by his order dated 7 -12 -1990 directed their enlargement on bail. In passing the order, the facts that weighed with the learned Sessions Judge were that in the forwarding report of the opposite parties by the investigating officer, it had been stated that Pradeep Kumar Panda, Basanta Kumar Panda, Sarada Prasad Swain, Kusuma Ranjan Patnaik, Goel Ashok. Goel and Kausal were apprehended and had been released on bail by the police. This was so, even if the case had been started inter alia Under Section 307 IPC and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, Besides the learned Sessions Judge also took into consideration the fact opposite parties are residents within the jurisdiction of the that the Court and that there was no apprehension of their fleeing from justice.

(2.) LEARNED Government Advocate Mr. Das appearing in support of the petition places reliance on 1986 (II) OLR 520, 62 (1986) CLT 699 (Chhaila Pradhan v. Bansidhar Pradhan) to contend that an application for cancellation of bail lies if bail has been granted illegally or improperly by wrong and arbitrary exercise of judicial discretion. lt is his submission that considering the gravity of the offence, the order of bail should be cancelled. Besides, he relies on AIR 1978 S C 179 (Gurcharan Singh and Ors. v. State -Delhi Administration) in which the Supreme Court has observed that the overriding considerations in granting bail which are common both in the case of Section 437(1) and Section 439(1), are the nature and gravity of the circumstances in which the offence is committed and the position and status of the accused with reference to the victim and the witnesses. It is the submission of Mr. Das that the learned Sessions Judge in granting bail did not consider the case in its proper perspective and the allegations against the opposite parties being grave involving also an offence Under Section 307, IPC and the status of the injured being that of the Chief Minister of the State, no bail should have been granted to the opposite parties.

(3.) THE injury report on examination of the injured shows that he suffered one abrasion (fresh bleeding) with encircling bruise of 1 cm, 1 1/2 cm,(linear cut), located horizontally at the bridge of the nose, the encircling bruise being more marked below the left eye -lid. On being referred to, the Chief Minister was also examined by another doctor who found one dressed Injury on the bridge of the nose, linear 1 1/2cm. abrasion with bruise 1 cm diameter and the nasal septum grossly deviated to right side. There was congestion at the {sic) area and upper part of septum on right side. There was bleeding on strain and clinically no fracture was detected. The opinion of the doctor who first examined the injured was that the injury was a simple one.