Sushanta Patra Vs. State of Orissa - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- 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 110a in the c.p.c., by 2002 amendment act, no letters patent appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge of a high court. a right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. it is pertinent to note that section 100-a introduced by 2002 amendment of the code starts with a non obstante clause. the purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the.....orderm.m. das, j.heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and the learned counsel for the state.this is an application under section 438 cr.p.c. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.1. allegation of commission of offence under sections 498a/34 i.p.c. read with section 4 of the d.p. act has been made against the petitioner who is the husband of the informant. such allegation has been made only after a couple of month from the date of marriage. it appears that the petitioner has filed c.s. no. 722 of 2007 before the court below under section 9 of the hindu marriage act for restitution of conjugal rights.learned counsel for the informant-wife vehemently argues that the petitioner had relationship with another lady and when the informant objected.....

Judgment:
ORDER

M.M. Das, J.

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the informant and the learned Counsel for the State.

This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

1. Allegation of commission of offence under Sections 498A/34 I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act has been made against the petitioner who is the husband of the informant. Such allegation has been made only after a couple of month from the date of marriage. It appears that the petitioner has filed C.S. No. 722 of 2007 before the Court below under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights.

Learned Counsel for the informant-wife vehemently argues that the petitioner had relationship with another lady and when the informant objected to the same, the petitioner threatened the informant to drive her out of his house.

Since the civil suit for restitution of conjugal rights is pending, I express no opinion in this regard.

2. Considering the nature of allegation made against the petitioner, who is stated to be serving as an employee of ICICI Bank, Bhubaneswar, it is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner in connection with Soro P.S. Case No. 144 of 2007 corresponding to Crl. Trl. (G.R.) Case No. 284 of 2007 pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Soro, he shall be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand) to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer subject to further condition that the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.

3. This order shall remain in force till submission of the final form.

In the event, the charge-sheet is filed, the petitioner, if so advised, may surrender before the Court below and move for regular bail.

4. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.