SIBA SANKAR DASH Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner Siba Sankar Dash @ Pintu Dash has prayed for bail in connection with G.R. Case No.22 of 2017 (SC and ST) arising out of Golanthara P.S. Case No.182 of 2017 pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur for commission of offences punishable under sections 341, 323, 294, 506, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, sections 3(1)(r)(s)/3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as amended by Amendment Act, 2015 (hereafter 'SC and ST (POA) Act') and sections 25(1-B)(a)/27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

(2.) The prosecution case, in short, as per the first information report submitted by one Ananta Das on 25.11.2017 is that the informant was maintaining his family by cultivating a piece of land under Kanisi Mouza. In the year 2009, the petitioner and his associates compelled the informant to sale that land and when he did not agree, he was threatened and abused in obscene languages. His thumb impressions were taken on blank papers on the point of gun and he was taken to the Sub- Registrar Office, Berhampur where his thumb impressions were taken in different papers forcibly and the original documents of the landed property were also taken away forcibly. He approached the petitioner on several occasion to return the original documents but in vain. On 01.08.2017 he got a certified copy of the Power of Attorney of his landed property from the Registrar Office and came to know that the entire landed property has been sold to one Gobinda Pradhan by preparing a fake Power of Attorney in the name of co-accused Pankaj Gouda in criminal conspiracy with co-accused B. Anil Kumar Subudhi and B. Ajit Kumar Subudhi. The accused persons forcibly occupied the entire landed properties of many innocent persons of the locality including the informant.

(3.) Mr. Ashok Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 18.01.2018 and the incident relates to the year 2009 and it is a dispute of purely civil in nature which has been given a colour of a criminal case after eight years of the alleged occurrence just to harass the petitioner. By filing an affidavit of the wife of the petitioner, it was indicated that though twenty three cases were registered against the petitioner apart from this case but in all those cases, the petitioner has been released on bail. A memo containing the list of cases and the bail orders was filed along with such affidavit. It is further submitted that the petitioner is now in custody only in connection with this case and co-accused persons have been released on bail and there is no chance of absconding and therefore, the bail application of the petitioner may be favourably considered.