Research › Browse › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

1984 DIGILAW 112 (ORI)

DEEPAK SINGH v. STATE

1984-04-11

B.K.BEHERA

body1984
B. K. BEHERA, 3., J. ( 1 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel. ( 2 ) THE petitioners are accused of an offence of theft, in such a case, unless there are exceptional circumstances to detain the petitioners, bail and not jail should be the rule. Bail has been refused both by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge mainly on the ground that the petitioners belong to Uttar Pradesh. This should not have weighed with the courts in refusing bail. ( 3 ) 1 would allow the application and direct release of each of the petitioners on bail on his furnishing a bail bond for Rs. 1,000/ (rupees one thousand) with one surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack. ( 4 ) IN such cases, there should be proper application of mind by the Courts of Session. Petition allowed.