GANA @ GANESWAR NAIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD

(2.) PETITIONER prays for anticipatory bail in G.R. Case No. 185 of 2002 of the Court of S.D.J.M., Talcher arising out of Colliery P.S. Case. No. 51 01'2002 involving the offence under Section; 363 and 366 -A, I.P.C. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that the principal accused in the case i.e., Ashok Naik has already been allowed to go on bail under Section 439, Cr.P.C. and the present Petitioner having simply accompanied that accused and the prosecutrix at the time of marriage and there being no allegation of any overt act against him, therefore, either the Petitioner be released on anticipatory bailor direction may be issued to the S.D.T.M., Talcher to release him on bail on his surrounding in that Court. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that as per the decision of this Court in the case of Tutu Malia v. State of Orissa, (1998) 14 OCR 434, at the stage of consideration of the application under Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure this Court can invoke inherent power for release of the Petitioner on ban. He also states that as per the ratio in the case reported in, 1986 ECC 627 ,, (1986) 2 GLR 206, the accused standing at the footing of the Petitioner should be allowed to go on anticipatory bail when the principal accused is allowed to go on bail. of course, in that respect, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners states that he could not get a copy of that judgment to be placed before this Court.

(3.) AT this stage, it be noted that on 17.12.2002 while moving the present bail application Petitioner wanted not to press the bail application if the Court would grant an order directing for surrender of the Petitioner in the Court of S.D.J.M. will a direction for disposal of the bail application in course of the day. Since this Court did not appreciate the conduct of the Petitioner in making such a bargain and therefore declined to pass any order in the manner the Petitioner wanted, hence Petitioner wanted to argue on merit and that is how this application is heard today after several adjournments on the prayer of the Petitioner.