PRASANTA KUMAR DHAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHILE considering the application, it was submitted that Golak Bihari Sahu another accused has been released on bail by the learned Sessions Judge. I called for the records to examine under what circumstances the accused was released. After receipt of records, I was satisfied that application for bail of Prasanta has no merit, I accordingly refused the prayer at that stage giving liberty to the applicant to move for bail afresh in case charge sheet is filed after completion of investigation. At that stage issued notice to Golak Bihari Sahu to show cause why his application for bail shall not be cancelled. This is the subject matter for consideration in the present case.

(2.) GOLAK Bihari Sahu is accused of an offence under Section 307/34 I.P.C. amongst other offences. Facts as disclosed from the written first information report is that the informant while going to the police station at 8 A.M., got information regarding transportation of clandestine goods in a Mini truck. He found the truck coming via. Apania through Mahanadi Vihar to Cuttack Paradeep road which was not the usual route for the vehicles and accordingly, suspected avoidance of the Commercial Tax Check gate at Sikharpur. At Chauliaganj, one of the occupants was asked by the informant if the truck was loaded with illicit tick timber. Immediately the driver (Prasant) gave speed to the truck being asked by the other occupants. He proceeded towards Bhubaneswar and the informant followed the truck in his motor cycle and over -took it at Madhupatna Railway over bridge and informed the traffic staff at Madhupatna link road crossing to stop the truck for verification. The driver did not obey the traffic signal and drove the truck on a wrong side and proceeded towards Badambadi. When the informant chased it in his motor cycle with a view to stood the truck at Badambadi, he found the truck taking a turn to Madhupatna direction and proceeded on National Highway No. 5 towards Sikharpur side, The informant became more suspicious and followed the truck which was plying towards Malgodown via Railway fly over bridge. In view of traffic, the truck had a slow speed. At the direction of the traffic staff on the over bridge, the truck stopped and was put to aside for checking. When the road became free, the truck was driven away without listening to the traffic staff and was about to run over the traffic staff. When the truck was taken to a side, informant remained in front of it on his motor cycle, Deliberately the driver collided the truck against the motor cycle as a result of which the motor cycle came underneath the vehicle and the informant sustained injuries. 80th the motor cycle anti the informant. Were dragged for about 25 feet.

(3.) IN a case of this nature, where there is some material that Golak was in the truck and directed the driver not to stop the truck and run over any person coming infront, the offence is of a heinous nature if a person gets injured as a result of such instigation and direction. While considering the application for bail, truth is not to be ascertained since materials are unacceptable, Parliament while classifying the offences has made the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. non -bailable. Thus, normally, the person accused of such an offence is to remain in custody and grant of bail to an accused in such an offence is an exception at the discretion of the Court. Where wide discretion is given to a Court, the same is to be exercised in a most befitting case and not at the mere asking of it. Learned Sessions Judge found that Golak Bihari Sahu has been identified in a T.I. Parada. Thus, I am inclined to hold that grant of bail to Golak within a few days of his arrest when the investigation was not complete in view of the nature of allegation against him amounts to improper exercise of discretion. This Court, after consideration of several decisions of the Supreme Court held in a decision reported in : 1986 (II) O.L.R. 520 (Chhaila Pradhan v. Bansidhar Pradhan and two Ors.) that bail granted illegally and/or improperly by wrong and arbitrary exercise of discretion can be cancelled. The decision reported in : A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 372 (Bhagirathsing Judeja v. State of Gujarat) relied upon by Mr. R.N. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the notice was also considered in the said case.