Orissa High Court: In a petition, wherein the grant of anticipatory bail was sought by the petitioner under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the Single Judge Bench of Chittarnajan Dash, J., refused to grant the anticipatory bail in favour of the accused before he was subjected to investigation.
Factual Matrix
In the matter at hand, the petitioner was alleged of being involved in ransacking the New Alishan Shoe Centre near Gole-Bazar, Sambalpur Town, during a procession on the occasion of Hanuman Jayanti on 14-04-2023. It was also alleged in the FIR that some miscreants had also set fire to the shop. During the enquiry, it was ascertained that about 50 persons, taking advantage of the huge gathering in the procession of Hanuman Jayanti, attacked the shop and were also shouting abusive and provocative slogans attributing to the minority communities, thereby creating outrage to the religious feelings of the Muslim community, giving rise to communal disharmony.
It was alleged that the petitioner was amongst the miscreants, who led the group and conspired the attack on the shops and residential houses of the Muslim community in retaliation to the incident that had happened during the bike-rally taken up by the Hanuman Jayanti Seva Samiti on 12-04-2023. It was further alleged that the situation became so alarming and out of control that curfew was imposed in the entire locality of Sambalpur Town.
Therefore, the petitioner was under an apprehension that he may get arrested for his alleged involvement in the offences under Section 147, 148, 153-A, 436, 149 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’).
Court’s Order
The Court noted that the Petitioner was also named in the FIR, who led the mob and attacked the shops as well as the residential houses of the Muslim community. The Court also noted that a riot took place leading to arson and bloodshed.
The Court said that Pre-arrest bail is an extra ordinary discretionary power which cannot be granted in routine. There was nothing in the FIR that the Petitioner holds a prestigious position so as to draw an inference that in a situation of this kind a case could have been hatched against him in order to defame him. Further, the Court said that nothing appeared from the ground propounded by the Petitioner in his prayer for pre-arrest bail that showed him to be a person having clean image or a man of standing repute, the custodial interrogation whereupon would tarnish his image.
Therefore, the Court said that it was not desirable to allow pre-arrest bail in favour of the Petitioner before he was subjected to investigation or interrogation. Thus, considering the seriousness and gravity of the offences, the Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner.
[Aniket Mishra v. State of Odisha, 2023 SCC OnLine Ori 2518, Order Dated: 05-05-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Advocate Manas Kumar Chand;
For the Respondents: Additional Standing Counsel Debasish Biswal.
