Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 396 (ORI)

Anadi Charan Swain v. State of Orissa

2018-04-10

J.P.DAS

body2018
JUDGMENT J.P.DAS, J. - This application is directed against the order dated 08.03.2018 passed by the learned 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Puri in Criminal Miscellaneous No.38-78 of 2018 cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner by the said Court in B.A. No.1174 of 2017. 2. The petitioner is an accused in G.R. Case No.172 of 2017 on the file of learned J.M.F.C., Pipili registered under Sections 147/148/323/325/294/506/427/379/307/149, I.P,.C. read with Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. His bail application was rejected by the learned Sessions Court on 18.05.2017. The petitioner came before this Court in BLAPL No.3726 of 2017, which was also rejected by order, dated 11.08.2017.The petitioner again filed BLAPL No.7505 of 2017 before this Court and it was allowed before the Vacation Bench but subsequently it was brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner suppressed the fact that the earlier bail application was rejected by this Court. Hence, the bail order passed in BLAPL No.7505 of 2017 was recalled and the petitioner was directed to surrender before the learned Court below. The said application was placed before the Bench, which had rejected earlier bail application of the petitioner and it was also rejected by the order dated 15.11.2017.Thereafter, the petitioner filed another bail application before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Puri and it was not pressed on 19.12.2017 and another bail application was filed by him on 27.12.2017 which was allowed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Puri. Thereafter, the informant in this case moved an application vide Criminal Miscellaneous No.38-78 of 2018 before the learned 2nd.Additional Sessions Judge, P:uri submitting that the petitioner has been granted with bail while he had suppressed the earlier rejections by the Sessions Court as well as by the High Court. The petitioner was noticed but he refused to accept the notice and also did not appear in the case. Considering the submissions and the material facts placed, the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Puri by the impugned order dated 08.03.2018 cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner and directed the learned trial court to issue N.B.W. of arrest against him. 3. Considering the submissions and the material facts placed, the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Puri by the impugned order dated 08.03.2018 cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner and directed the learned trial court to issue N.B.W. of arrest against him. 3. It was submitted by learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the bail granted to the petitioner has been cancelled by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Puri illegally without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It was further submitted that the rejection of earlier bail applications is not a legal bar for the accused to move subsequent bail application. 4. It was submitted on behalf of the State that while the bail applications of the petitioner were rejected twice by this Court, suppression of said fact while moving the bail application before the Sessions court was definitely with a mala fide intention to hoodwink the Court and hence, the impugned order cancelling the bail of the petitioner has been rightly passed. 5. There is no doubt that an accused is entitled to file as many successive bail applications but the suppression of the material facts of earlier rejection of bail by superior court while moving the application before the Sub-ordinate court definitely speaks against the conduct of the accused. That apart, this application has been moved seeking exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The revisional jurisdiction can be exercised when the impugned order passed by any Sub-ordinate Court is illegal, incorrect or perverse causing failure of justice or when the learned court below has failed to exercise its jurisdiction or has exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order. As seen from the impugned order in this case, the petitioner despite notice did not appear before the court while considering the application for cancellation of his bail. It is also not disputed that the material facts were not brought before the court while considering his bail application. Thus, I do no find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order so as to be interfered with in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 6. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed for being devoid of any merit. However, it needs no mention that the petitioner is at liberty to move successive application for bail in case of any change in the circumstances so as to be considered by the concerned court. Petition dismissed.