- (1.)SLP (CRL.) NO. 8726 OF 2013
Leave granted. Respondents Nos. 2 to 5, namely, Sangram Keshan Nayak, Lenin Ku. Baliarsingh, Narendra Baliarsingh and Sushanta Pradhan @ Sukanta Pradhan, had sought pre-arrest bail which was rejected by the High Court by its order dated 19th March, 2013. However, by the same order, the High Court directed the Respondents-accused to surrender before the learned trial Court and further directed the learned trial Court to release them on bail. Aggrieved, the complainant has filed the present appeal.

(2.)We have perused the First Information Report (FIR) which is on record and have considered the allegations made against the Respondents-accused. The offence alleged in the FIR against the said accused is, inter alia, Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Once the High Court had refused pre-arrest bail, there could have been no occasion to pass the subsequent directions, namely, that the accused should surrender and upon such surrender, the learned trial Court should release them on bail.
(3.)Accordingly, we are of the view that the aforesaid order passed by the High Court calls the interference. The said directions issued by the High Court in its order dated 19th March, 2013 passed in BLAPL No. 1006 of 2013 are, therefore, set aside and Respondents Nos. 2 to 5, namely, Sangram Keshari Nayak, Lenin Ku. Baliarsingh, Narendra Baliarsingh and Sushanta Pradhan @ Sukanta Pradhan, are directed to be taken into custody forthwith.