ORDER : SLP(CRL.) NO. 8726 OF 2013 Leave granted. Respondents Nos. 2 to 5, namely, Sangram Keshari 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. 1106 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. 5. We also make it clear that this Order will not be a bar for the accused respondents to seek regular bail, which will be considered by the learned competent Court on its own merit and in accordance with law. 6. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. SLP(CRL.) NO. 1402 OF 2014 7. Leave granted. 8. Respondent No. 2, namely, Judhistir Nayak, had sought pre-arrest bail which was rejected by the High Court by its order dated 3rd May, 2013. However, by the same order, the High Court directed the respondent-accused to surrender before the learned trial Court and further directed the learned trial Court to release him on bail. Aggrieved, the complainant has filed the present appeal. 9. We have perused the First Information Report (FIR) which is on record and have considered the allegations made against the respondent - accused. Aggrieved, the complainant has filed the present appeal. 9. We have perused the First Information Report (FIR) which is on record and have considered the allegations made against the respondent - 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 him on bail. 10. 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 3rd May, 2013 passed in BLAPL NO.6009 of 2013 are, therefore, set aside and respondent No. 2, namely, Judhistir Nayak, is directed to be taken into custody forthwith. 11. We also make it clear that this Order will not be a bar for the accused respondent to seek regular bail, which will be considered by the learned competent Court on its own merit and in accordance with law. 12. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. SLP(CRL.) NO. 1404 OF 2014 13. Leave granted. 14. Respondent No. 2, namely, Kailash Chandra Nayak, had sought pre-arrest bail which was rejected by the High Court by its order dated 14th May, 2013. However, by the same order, the High Court directed the respondent-accused to surrender before the learned trial Court and further directed the learned trial Court to release him on bail. Aggrieved, the complainant has filed the present appeal. 15. We have perused the First Information Report (FIR) which is on record and have considered the allegations made against the respondent - 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 him on bail. 16. Accordingly, we are of the view that the aforesaid order passed by the High Court calls the interference. 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 him on bail. 16. 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 14th May, 2013 passed in BLAPL NO.9662 of 2013 are, therefore, set aside and respondent No. 2, namely, Kailash Chandra Nayak, is directed to be taken into custody forthwith. 17. We also make it clear that this Order will not be a bar for the accused respondent to seek regular bail, which will be considered by the learned competent Court on its own merit and in accordance with law. 18. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. SLP(CRL.) NO. 1405 OF 2014 19. Leave granted. 20. Respondent No. 2, namely, Biswanath Baliar Singh, had sought pre-arrest bail which was rejected by the High Court by its order dated 14th December, 2012. However, by the same order, the High Court directed the respondent-accused to surrender before the learned trial Court and further directed the learned trial Court to release him on bail. Aggrieved, the complainant has filed the present appeal. 21. We have perused the First Information Report (FIR) which is on record and have considered the allegations made against the respondent - 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 him on bail. 22. 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 14th December, 2012 passed in BLAPL NO.28295 of 2012 are, therefore, set aside and respondent No. 2, namely, Biswanath Baliar Singh, is directed to be taken into custody forthwith. 23. 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 14th December, 2012 passed in BLAPL NO.28295 of 2012 are, therefore, set aside and respondent No. 2, namely, Biswanath Baliar Singh, is directed to be taken into custody forthwith. 23. We also make it clear that this Order will not be a bar for the accused respondent to seek regular bail, which will be considered by the learned competent Court on its own merit and in accordance with law. 24. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. SLP(CRL.) NO. 1406 OF 2014 25. Leave granted. 26. Respondent No. 2, namely, Khirodakumar Nayak, had sought pre-arrest bail which was rejected by the High Court by its order dated 21st December, 2012. However, by the same order, the High Court directed the respondent-accused to surrender before the learned trial Court and further directed the learned trial Court to release him on bail. Aggrieved, the complainant has filed the present appeal. 27. We have perused the First Information Report (FIR) which is on record and have considered the allegations made against the respondent - 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 him on bail. 28. 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 21st December, 2012 passed in BLAPL NO.33021 of 2012 are, therefore, set aside and respondent No. 2, namely, Khirodakumar Nayak, is directed to be taken into custody forthwith. 29. We also make it clear that this Order will not be a bar for the accused respondent to seek regular bail, which will be considered by the learned competent Court on its own merit and in accordance with law. 30. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. SLP(CRL.) NO. 1407 OF 2014 31. Leave granted. 32. 29. We also make it clear that this Order will not be a bar for the accused respondent to seek regular bail, which will be considered by the learned competent Court on its own merit and in accordance with law. 30. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. SLP(CRL.) NO. 1407 OF 2014 31. Leave granted. 32. Respondent No. 2, namely, Kabiraj Nayak, had sought pre-arrest bail which was rejected by the High Court by its order dated 14th May, 2013. However, by the same order, the High Court directed the respondent-accused to surrender before the learned trial Court and further directed the learned trial Court to release him on bail. Aggrieved, the complainant has filed the present appeal. 33. We have perused the First Information Report (FIR) which is on record and have considered the allegations made against the respondent - 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 him on bail. 34. 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 14th May, 2013 passed in BLAPL NO.9617 of 2013 are, therefore, set aside and respondent No. 2, namely, Kabiraj Nayak, is directed to be taken into custody forthwith. 35. We also make it clear that this Order will not be a bar for the accused respondent to seek regular bail, which will be considered by the learned competent Court on its own merit and in accordance with law. 36. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. SLP(CRL.) NO. 1408 OF 2014 37. Leave granted. 38. Respondent No. 2, namely, Bichitrananda Baliyar Singh, had sought pre-arrest bail which was rejected by the High Court by its order dated 5th February, 2013. However, by the same order, the High Court directed the respondent-accused to surrender before the learned trial Court and further directed the learned trial Court to release him on bail. Aggrieved, the complainant has filed the present appeal. 39. However, by the same order, the High Court directed the respondent-accused to surrender before the learned trial Court and further directed the learned trial Court to release him on bail. Aggrieved, the complainant has filed the present appeal. 39. We have perused the First Information Report (FIR) which is on record and have considered the allegations made against the respondent - 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 him on bail. 40. 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 5th February, 2013 passed in BLAPL NO.33756 of 2012 are, therefore, set aside and respondent No. 2, namely, Bichitrananda Baliyar Singh, is directed to be taken into custody forthwith. 41. We also make it clear that this Order will not be a bar for the accused respondent to seek regular bail, which will be considered by the learned competent Court on its own merit and in accordance with law. 42. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. SLP(CRL.) NO. 1409 OF 2014 43. Leave granted. 44. Respondent No. 2, namely, Satyanarayan Pattnayak, had sought pre-arrest bail which was rejected by the High Court by its order dated 21st December, 2012. However, by the same order, the High Court directed the respondent-accused to surrender before the learned trial Court and further directed the learned trial Court to release him on bail. Aggrieved, the complainant has filed the present appeal. 45. We have perused the First Information Report (FIR) which is on record and have considered the allegations made against the respondent - 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 him on bail. 46. 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 him on bail. 46. 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 21st December, 2012 passed in BLAPL NO.32817 of 2012 are, therefore, set aside and respondent No. 2, namely, Satyanarayan Pattnayak, is directed to be taken into custody forthwith. 47. We also make it clear that this Order will not be a bar for the accused respondent to seek regular bail, which will be considered by the learned competent Court on its own merit and in accordance with law. 48. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. SLP(CRL.) NO. 1410 OF 2014 49. Leave granted. 50. Respondent No. 2, namely, Ramakant Baliyar Singh, had sought pre-arrest bail which was rejected by the High Court by its order dated 5th February, 2013. However, by the same order, the High Court directed the respondent-accused to surrender before the learned trial Court and further directed the learned trial Court to release him on bail. Aggrieved, the complainant has filed the present appeal. 51. We have perused the First Information Report (FIR) which is on record and have considered the allegations made against the respondent - 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 him on bail. 52. 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 5th February, 2013 passed in BLAPL NO.33766 of 2012 are, therefore, set aside and respondent No. 2, namely, Ramakant Baliyar Singh, is directed to be taken into custody forthwith. 53. 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 5th February, 2013 passed in BLAPL NO.33766 of 2012 are, therefore, set aside and respondent No. 2, namely, Ramakant Baliyar Singh, is directed to be taken into custody forthwith. 53. We also make it clear that this Order will not be a bar for the accused respondent to seek regular bail, which will be considered by the learned competent Court on its own merit and in accordance with law. 54. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. SLP(CRL.) NO. 1411 OF 2014 55. Leave granted. 56. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Prasanta Nayak @ Prasant Ku Nayak and Tudu @ Biswajit Nayak, had sought pre-arrest bail which was rejected by the High Court by its order dated 14th December, 2012. However, by the same order, the High Court directed the respondent-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. 57. We have perused the First Information Report (FIR) which is on record and have considered the allegations made against the respondent - 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. 58. 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 14th December, 2012 passed in BLAPL NO.30405 of 2012 are, therefore, set aside and respondent Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Prasanta Nayak @ Prasant Ku Nayak and Tudu @ Biswajit Nayak, are directed to be taken into custody forthwith. 59. We also make it clear that this Order will not be a bar for the accused respondents to seek regular bail, which will be considered by the learned competent Court on its own merit and in accordance with law. 60. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. SLP(CRL.) NO. 1413 OF 2014 61. 59. We also make it clear that this Order will not be a bar for the accused respondents to seek regular bail, which will be considered by the learned competent Court on its own merit and in accordance with law. 60. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. SLP(CRL.) NO. 1413 OF 2014 61. Leave granted. 62. Respondent No. 2, namely, Pramod Swain, had sought pre-arrest bail which was rejected by the High Court by its order dated 9th May, 2013. However, by the same order, the High Court directed the respondent-accused to surrender before the learned trial Court and further directed the learned trial Court to release him on bail. Aggrieved, the complainant has filed the present appeal. 63. We have perused the First Information Report (FIR) which is on record and have considered the allegations made against the respondent - 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 him on bail. 64. 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 9th May, 2013 passed in BLAPL NO.8528 of 2013 are, therefore, set aside and respondent No. 2, namely, Pramod Swain, is directed to be taken into custody forthwith. 65. We also make it clear that this Order will not be a bar for the accused respondent to seek regular bail, which will be considered by the learned competent Court on its own merit and in accordance with law. 66. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. SLP(CRL.) NO. 1414 OF 2014 67. Leave granted. 68. Respondent No. 2, namely, Gunanidhi Baliarsingh, had sought pre-arrest bail which was rejected by the High Court by its order dated 10th May, 2013. However, by the same order, the High Court directed the respondent-accused to surrender before the learned trial Court and further directed the learned trial Court to release him on bail. Aggrieved, the complainant has filed the present appeal. 69. However, by the same order, the High Court directed the respondent-accused to surrender before the learned trial Court and further directed the learned trial Court to release him on bail. Aggrieved, the complainant has filed the present appeal. 69. We have perused the First Information Report (FIR) which is on record and have considered the allegations made against the respondent - 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 him on bail. 70. 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 10th May, 2013 passed in BLAPL NO.8717 of 2013 are, therefore, set aside and respondent No. 2, namely, Gunanidhi Baliarsingh, is directed to be taken into custody forthwith. 71. We also make it clear that this Order will not be a bar for the accused respondent to seek regular bail, which will be considered by the learned competent Court on its own merit and in accordance with law. 72. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. SLP(CRL.) NO. 1415 OF 2014 73. Leave granted. 74. Respondent No. 2, namely, Sarat Chandra Nayak, had sought pre-arrest bail which was rejected by the High Court by its order dated 12th February, 2013. However, by the same order, the High Court directed the respondent-accused to surrender before the learned trial Court and further directed the learned trial Court to release him on bail. Aggrieved, the complainant has filed the present appeal. 75. We have perused the First Information Report (FIR) which is on record and have considered the allegations made against the respondent - 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 him on bail. 76. 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 him on bail. 76. 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 12th February, 2013 passed in BLAPL NO.34000 of 2012 are, therefore, set aside and respondent No. 2, namely, Sarat Chandra Nayak, is directed to be taken into custody forthwith. 77. We also make it clear that this Order will not be a bar for the accused respondent to seek regular bail, which will be considered by the learned competent Court on its own merit and in accordance with law. 78. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.