Petitioner Is Not Any Prestigious Person To Be Defamed: Orissa HC Refuses Anticipatory Bail To Man Accused Of Communal Violence

The Orissa High Court recently refused to grant pre-arrest bail to a person accused of shouting abusive and provocative slogans attributed to minority communities and giving rise to communal disharmony during the Hanuman Jayanti procession. The High Court while refusing the bail noted that there is nothing in the F.I.R. to draw an inference that the Petitioner holds a prestigious position so that in a situation of this kind a case could have been hatched against him in order to defame him. 

The Bench of Justice Chittaranjan Dash observed that "In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, having regard to the nature of the allegation against the Petitioner, seriousness and gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner".

The Court observed, "There is nothing in the F.I.R. that the Petitioner holds a prestigious position so as to draw an inference that in a situation of this kind a case could have been hatched against him in order to defame him."

The Court in its order also noted that "The name of the present Petitioner along with others finds place in the F.I.R., who led the mob and attacked the shops as well as the residential houses of the Muslim community". 

The Court was considering an application by Aniket Mishra under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking a grant of bail in the apprehension of his arrest. As per the FIR, it was alleged that the Petitioner was leading a mob of miscreants on the day of Hanuman Jayanti who ransacked a Shoe Centre and set ablaze the shop. It was also stated that the mob shouted abusive and provocative slogans and created outrage in the religious feelings of the Muslim community.

Advocate Manas Kumar Chand appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner had no role in the alleged incident and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Chand also submitted that there is also nothing in the FIR to implicate him in the offences alleged.

Additional Standing Counsel Debasish Biswal appearing for the State submitted that the matter in issue is not only sensitive but the situation is not yet clear in the locality, and there being materials against the Petitioner prima facie attributable against him to have led the mob, the petitioner should not be granted bail.

The Court after considering the situation directed that the Pre-arrest bail being an extraordinary discretionary power cannot be granted routinely and stated that "A judicial notice can also be taken of the fact that a riot took place thereafter leading to arson and bloodshed" and that "grant of pre-arrest bail vis-à-vis the allegations made in the F.I.R. will have a great ramification when the situation is volatile and as such it is not desirable to allow pre-arrest bail".

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the bail application.

Cause Title: Aniket Mishra v. State of Odisha

Click here to read/download the Order