Sk. GyasuddIn and ors. Vs. State

Sk. GyasuddIn and ors. vs State

Disposition Application rejected Court Orissa Decided Apr 08, 1991

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/536145

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/536145
Court: Orissa High Court
Judge: S.C. Mohapatra, J.
Decided On: Apr 08, 1991
Case Number: Crl. Misc. Case No. 283 of 1991
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Application rejected

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent Appeal Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., - Held, After introduction of Section ...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Application rejected
Acts & sections: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 157 and 439

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sk. GyasuddIn and ors.

Advocate P.K. Mishra and ;Basudev Mishra, Advs.

Respondent

State

Advocate Addl. Standing Counsel

Legal References

Acts: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 157 and 439
Reported In: 1991CriLJ2880

Excerpt

.....original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a single judge of a high court, no further appeal shall lie. even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under section 2(9) means a statement given by a judge on the grounds of a decree or order. thus the contention that against an order passed by a single judge in an appeal filed under section 104 c.p.c., a further appeal lies to a division bench cannot be accepted. the newly incorporated section 100a in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a single judge to a division bench notwithstanding anything contained in the letters patent. the letters patent which provides for further appeal to a division bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a single judge. it has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an appeal to the high court. it has not made any provision for filing appeal to a division bench against the judgment or decree or order of a single judge. no letters patent appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a single judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a special act. sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002] & 104:[dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] writ appeal held, a writ appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by single judge in a writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india. in a writ application filed under articles 226 and 227 of constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under article 226, a writ appeal will lie. but, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge in exercising powers of superintendence under article 227 of the constitution. .....some other materials on the case diary which reasonably created suspicion in the mind of the police officer that accused persons might have been connected with the crime. if i elaborate the same at this stage, it may be prejudicial to the accused persons. i can only state that suspicion of the investigating officer cannot be said to be unreasonable or on account of extraneous consideration at this stage.4. who so ever might have committed the offence, there can be no doubt that it is heinous in character. if accused no. 1 with association of the other two has committed the same, it becomes more heinous on account of status of accused no. 1 in the community. such offence is non-bailable. investigating officer is authorised under section 157, cr. p.c. to take measures to arrest the offender in course of investigation. apart from the fact that petitioner no. 1 is a leading member of the community and petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are his associates, there is some material in case diary to disclose that petitioner no. 1 had threatened a person who stated about the three persons under the tree near about the time and place of occurrence. there can be reasonable suspicion that furtherance of investigation may be affected if the petitioners are given liberty by bail.5. in the aforesaid circumstances, i am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners at this stage. application is rejected.

Full Judgment

ORDER

S.C. Mohapatra, J.

1. Allegation of missing of a girl aged about 10 years in the evening of 19-12-1990 and recovery of her dead body on 18-12-1990 in the early morning after FIR was lodged by father of the missing girl on 12-12-1990 at Balichandrapur Police Station which has the out come to arrest the three accused persons on 19-2-1991 is subject matter of this application for bail Under Section 439, Cr. P.C.

2. Petitioner No. 1 is a leading personality of his community to which the girl also belongs. There is some material (to show?) that petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are his associates. Investigation in this case by Officer-in-charge of the Police Station till 18-12-1990 could not lead to any result. Circle Inspector took up investigation after dead body was found. He also could not make any progress. Investigation was transferred to Crime Branch and the first Inspector who could not proceed further. The present investigating officer has arrested the accused persons.

3. From the investigation till this stage, there is no material directly connecting the accused persons. Some materials are available to indicate at the time when girl is alleged to be missing, the three accused persons were found nearby. Girl was heard to make a cry which was heard by a lady and another person. That person saw the three accused under a tree and the girl near about that tree when he crossed them to go to the bazar. On hearing the cry he looked back and did not find the girl or the three accused persons. There are some other materials on the case diary which reasonably created suspicion in the mind of the police officer that accused persons might have been connected with the crime. If I elaborate the same at this stage, it may be prejudicial to the accused persons. I can only state that suspicion of the investigating Officer cannot be said to be unreasonable or on account of extraneous consideration at this stage.

4. Who so ever might have committed the offence, there can be no doubt that it is heinous in character. If accused No. 1 with association of the other two has committed the same, it becomes more heinous on account of status of accused No. 1 in the community. Such offence is non-bailable. Investigating Officer is authorised Under Section 157, Cr. P.C. to take measures to arrest the offender in course of investigation. Apart from the fact that petitioner No. 1 is a leading member of the community and petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are his associates, there is some material in case diary to disclose that petitioner No. 1 had threatened a person who stated about the three persons under the tree near about the time and place of occurrence. There can be reasonable suspicion that furtherance of investigation may be affected if the petitioners are given liberty by bail.

5. In the aforesaid circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners at this stage. Application is rejected.

Same Court & Year Orissa · 1991 Same Parties Sk. GyasuddIn and ors. vs State Same Subject Criminal Same Judge S.C. Mohapatra, J. Acts & Sections Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 157 and 439

Criminal