SK. EDRISH @ SK. EDRISH Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned State Counsel. Perused the materials available on record.

(2.) THE order dated 15.1.2002 taking cognizance against the Petitioner by the S.D.J.M., Kendrapara is impugned in this case. Careful perusal of the F.I.R. reveals that though other accused persons are specifically named, neither the Petitioner is named nor any overt act has been attributed to the Petitioner in the FIR. According to Mr. Sahoo, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, as he had not taken any part in the offence as would be evident from the F.I.R., taking cognizance under Section 307 I.P.C., as far as Petitioner is concerned, is not justified. Mr. Sahoo also referred to the injury report which indicates only three simple injuries. On the other hand, Mr. Pradhan, Learned Counsel for the State submits that the F.I.R. is not an encyclopedia. In course of investigation there might be some material against the Petitioner so as to justify taking cognizance under Section 307 I.P.C.

(3.) IN view of the peculiar facts and circumstances, while not interfering with the order of taking cognizance, I direct that if the Petitioner surrenders before the learned S.D.J.M., Kendrapara in G.R. Case No. 182 of 2001 and moves a petition for bail, the learned S.D.J.M. shall do well to release the Petitioner on bail on such terms and conditions.