PRAFULLA KUMAR NAYAK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for State.

(2.) PETITIONER was granted bail in G. R Case No. 146 of 1993 by learned SDJM, Karanjia. Subsequent to the grant of bail, charge -sheet was submitted indicating commission of offence punishable under Section 395, IPC. Learned SDJM was of the view that bail was granted on the premises that the petitioner and others had committed offence punishable under Section 384, !PC. In view of the submission of the charge -sheet under Section 395, IPC, bail bonds furnished by the petitioner were to be cancelled. Accordingly, he directed cancellation of bail and issued non -bailable warrant against the petitioner and others. Learned SDJM also took cognizance of offence punishable under Section 395, IPC. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the order dated 5 -3 -1994 is indefensible because (a) an order of bail remains in operation unless it is cancelled under appropriate provisions, and (b) ingredients necessary to constitute offence punishable under Section 395, IPC are absent. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, supported the order

(3.) SO far as the question whether ingredients necessary to constitute offence punishable under Section 395, IPC, are present is concerned, this aspect can be highlighted by the petitioner before the learned SDJM. If such a course is adopted, it shall be dealt with keeping in view the principles indicated by the Apex Court in the case of K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala and Anr., (1992) 5 OCR 66.