Orissa High Court: In a bail application for a young practising lawyer (petitioner- accused) who suffered at the hands of police and sustained injuries, Aditya Kumar Mohapatra, J. accepted the hearing of the matter on special notice concerning the gravity and seriousness of the matter and directed to release her on bail.
The Court also cautioned against use of such type of format orders, wherein Magistrate uses rejection slip while rejecting the bail application, without application of judicial mind and acting in a mechanical manner.
Background
The ASI of the Police Station alleged that while they were on patrolling duty at about 3.30 A.M., she received a call informing that a young man and woman who were present in the Police Station were creating ruckus. While enquiring as to what went wrong, both the young persons, including the petitioner- accused abused her in filthy languages and assaulted the informant, ASI as well as other police staff. In the FIR against the petitioner- accused, it was alleged that due to bite undertaken by the petitioner-accused, a female police staff sustained a bleeding injury on her hand. Furthermore, property of the Police Station including a laptop was damaged. The FIR against the petitioner- accused alleged her of committing offences under Sections 126(2) 115(2), 296, 324(2), 118(1), 74, 132, 351(3, 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Allegations by the Petitioner
The petitioner’s case was that she was brutally assaulted by the Police personnel in duty at Bharatpur Police Station, resulting in grievous injury, while she was visiting the Police Station to lodge a complaint against some culprits involved in road rage case which occurred while they were returning to their residence. The petitioner- accused is a practising lawyer and daughter of a Brigadier of the Indian Army. However, instead of registering her complaint, the Police personnel started misbehaving with her and her friend who is a Major in the Indian Army. Further, it was stated that both of them were illegally kept in lock up for several hours.
It was brought to the Court’s attention that Co-ordinate Bench had directed to shift the petitioner-accused to AIIMS, Bhubaneswar, where she was undergoing treatment.
The Advocate General for the State submitted that, drastic action was taken against the erring police officers, some of them have been transferred and some were put under suspension and proceedings were initiated against them, and that appropriate action will be taken against the officers found guilty, after an inquiry against them.
Analysis and Decision
The Court on perusal of the Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, where under the present application for bail was moved, viewed that the jurisdiction conferred on both the Courts are concurrent and that the provision does not create any embargo in entertaining the application by either of the Court. However, as a matter of sound judicial practice, established over the years, the bail application of the petitioner- accused should have been taken up before the Sessions Judge and upon rejection, the accused can approach the Court for regular bail.
However, considering the seriousness and gravity of the matter, relying upon Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, the Court observed that-
“individual liberty of the citizens is of paramount consideration and the same is to be protected while enforcing the Rule of law in the society.”
The Court said that the allegations made by the petitioner-accused is an anathema to the very concept of a democratic and orderly society. Therefore, taking a departure from the well-established practice of considering the bail application only after the same is rejected by the District & Sessions Judge, the Court taking up the bail application on its own merit, directed to release her on bail, subject to the furnishing of the bail bond of Rs.30,000/- with two local solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court in seisin over the matter. Further, the Court added that the release of the petitioner- accused shall be subject to such terms and conditions as would be deemed just and proper by the Court concerned.
The Court also pointed out that the arresting officer failed to follow the procedure laid down under Section 35 of the BNSS (corresponding to 41/41-A of the CrPC) which is contrary to the guidelines framed in Satender Kumar Antil. The Court also mentioned that the State Government shall bear all the expenses to be incurred in the treatment of the petitioner- accused.
Considering the Advocate General’s submission, the Court directed that the allegation with regard to Police atrocities shall be dealt with utmost seriousness and the same shall be taken to its logical conclusion.
[Ankita Pradhan v. State of Odisha, BLAPL No.9430 of 2024, decided on: 18-09-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: Senior Advocate Y Dash
For the respondent: AGA BK Ragada
The post appeared first on .