Subash Sardar vs. State Of Odisha

Facts

The petitioners, Subash Sardar and another, are seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Raghunathpalli P.S. Case No. 137 of 2019, which corresponds to G.R. Case No. 934 of 2019. The said case was registered for alleged offences under Sections 419, 420, 120-B, 467, and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. The case is pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Panposh. The petitioners have approached the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack for anticipatory bail after their previous application was rejected. The judgment notes that the prayer for anticipatory bail of a co-accused was also rejected by this Court in ABLAPL No. 8233 of 2019.

Held

The Court considered the submissions made by both parties and the nature of the accusation against the petitioners. It also took into account the materials available on record, which emanate from the role allegedly played by the petitioners. Furthermore, the Court noted the rejection of the anticipatory bail prayer for a co-accused in a similar application (ABLAPL No. 8233 of 2019) by this Court. Based on these considerations, the Court found that the present case is not a fit one for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Consequently, the application for anticipatory bail was dismissed. No specific provisions of the GST Act were discussed in relation to the bail application.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the nature of the accusations and the materials on record? Petitioner's contention: The petitioners are seeking anticipatory bail. No specific arguments or reliance on authorities by the petitioners are recorded in the judgment. Revenue/State's contention: Mr. R. Chimanka, learned Senior Standing Counsel, GST, appeared for the State. No specific arguments or reliance on authorities by the State are recorded in the judgment, beyond their appearance and representation.