STATE Vs. PABITRA MOHAN SAHOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) While considering the question of granting bail to Bhagabat Prasad Misra in Crl. Misc. Case No. 560 of 1987, I issued notice against accused Pabitra Mohan Sahoo to show cause why the anticipatory bail granted by the learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur shall not be cancelled. On receipt of notice, the accused appeared through Mr. Ullash Ch. Mohanty, Advocate an 14th of October, 1987. When the matter was listed for orders on 27-11-1987, Mr. Mohanty prayed for adjournment for two weeks. On 15-12-1987, when the matter was listed again Mr. Mohanty took adjournment and adjournment was granted as a last chance. Today when the matter was taken up for hearing. Mr. Mohanty submitted that he has no instruction in the matter. Consequently without the assistance of Mr. Mohanty, I am disposing of this matter.

(2.) Accused Pabitra Mohan Sahoo has been granted anticipatory hail. The allegation made against him is that while he was a Sarpanch, he misappropriated some amount from gram panchayat fund for which he is alleged to have committed an offence under S.409, Indian Penal Code. Before his arrest, he applied for being granted anticipatory bail to the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge perused the first information report and found that the contents of the first information report are sufficient to give rise to a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the accused that he would be arrested in a non-bailable offence. Referring to the decision reported in 1980 Cri LJ 1125,(Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. v. State of Punjab) anticipatory bail was granted without discussing how the principle laid down in the said decision would govern the present case. The only finding is : Till yesterday the petitioner was Sarpanch and chances of his fleeing justice are remote'. This is no ground for grant of anticipatory bail. The order not having spoken anything, I am satisfied that the only ground that the accused was at one stage a Sarpanch in which office he is alleged to have misappropriated funds of the gram panchayat is not a sufficient ground to grant anticipatory bail.

(3.) Grant of anticipatory bail is not a normal feature even where the offence alleged is non-bailable and there is apprehension in mind that the applicant shall be arrested. When wide power is given to the Court, it is to be exercised with restraint. As has been held in the referred to decision :