Skip to content


Kamal Kumar Jena Vs. State - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Misc. Case No. 34 of 1985
Judge
Reported in1985(I)OLR253
ActsCriminal Procedure (CrPC), Code 1973 - Sections 437
AppellantKamal Kumar Jena
RespondentState
Appellant AdvocateA. Deo, D. Nayak and P.K. Dhal
Respondent AdvocateN.C. Panigrahi, Addl. Govt. Adv.
Excerpt:
.....proceeding to the orissa state financial corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the act, 1972 or the act, 1951. [air 2002 orissa 130 overruled]. -- state financial corporations act, 1951. section 29; discharge of loan orissa forest act (14 of 1972), section 56 confiscation of vehicle - held, the authorities under section 56 of the orissa forest act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order..........has come to our notice . that a number of such applications are now being made by persons accused of serious and heinous offences after their applications for bail are rejected. the court should be very careful and circumspect while considering such applications even if they are supported by medical certificates. having carefully considered the matter, we see no reason to admit the petitioner to bail even for some period. the application is rejected. the miscellaneous case is accordingly dismissed.2. the trial be expedited and may be disposed of within three months, if possible.
Judgment:
ORDER

P.C. Misra, J.

1. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N.C. Panigrahi, the learned Additional Government Advocate. The petitioner is accused of an offence of murder. Earlier he had unsuccessfully moved this Court for his release on bail. Now he has made a fresh application on the ground that his mother is suffering from anaemia and bronchitis for which his presence is necessary. It has come to our notice . that a number of such applications are now being made by persons accused of serious and heinous offences after their applications for bail are rejected. The Court should be very careful and circumspect while considering such applications even if they are supported by medical certificates. Having carefully considered the matter, we see no reason to admit the petitioner to bail even for some period. The application is rejected. The Miscellaneous Case is accordingly dismissed.

2. The trial be expedited and may be disposed of within three months, if possible.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //