HC judge links bail orders to planting saplings
2
Cuttack: In an innovative approach to justice, Justice S K Panigrahi of the Orissa high court has been making planting saplings a key condition for granting bail in criminal cases.
Over 70 recent bail orders have included requirements for planting between 50 and 1,000 saplings.
The bail conditions, imposed during the first fortnight of May, apply to various criminal cases, including murder, rape, assault, cheating, cyber crime, economic offences, theft and NDPS Act violations.
Under the new conditions, bail applicants must plant local species such as mango, neem and tamarind on govt, community or private land.
The revenue authority will assist in identifying suitable plantation sites if needed, while district nurseries and divisional forest officers will provide the saplings.
"The petitioners must file an affidavit after plantation and maintain the trees for two years," Justice Panigrahi stated in his orders. Local police stations, in coordination with forest officers, will monitor compliance.
In addition to planting saplings, some bail orders include sanitation service requirements.
Several accused have been directed to clean police station premises for two months, with cleaning materials provided by the respective stations.
Standard bail conditions remain in place, including weekly police station visits and restrictions against engaging in criminal activities or witness intimidation.
While the accused maintain their innocence, claiming false implication in cases, the court has granted bail without detailed examination of the allegations, focusing instead on rehabilitation conditions.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
32 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Over 833 kg ganja destroyed by Tambaram City Police
Tambaram City Police destroyed 833.5 kg of seized ganja with the approval of the narcotic disposal committee. The contraband, accumulated from various enforcement operations across Tambaram City, was incinerated at GJ Multiclave Company, located in Thenmelpakkam, Chengalpet District. Given the hazardous and decaying nature of narcotic substances and the limitations of secure storage, the Police regularly undertakes the destruction of seized drugs as per the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. Tambaram City Police said the destruction was conducted at a licensed incineration facility, in full compliance with legal and environmental protocols. Senior officials were present to oversee the process, ensuring complete transparency and adherence to due procedures under the NDPS Act. In 2025, a total of 1,304 kgs of ganja has been destroyed so far. Furthermore, the Drug Disposal Committee is actively considering the destruction of over 1,000 kgs of additional seized ganja.
Indian Express
32 minutes ago
- Indian Express
ED opposes M3M director's plea to quash graft FIR: ‘Don't need sanction to prosecute private person'
The Enforcement Directorate Tuesday opposed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court a plea moved by M3M Director Roop Bansal seeking to quash a corruption case registered against him for allegedly conspiring to bribe a trial court judge. In the case, Bansal is booked under Sections 7, 8, 11 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) along with Section 120-B of the IPC. Bansal's lawyers contended that the proceedings were invalid due to the absence of sanction required under Section 17A of the PCA to prosecute the judge allegedly linked to the bribery. The counsel argued that a person could not be prosecuted solely under Section 120-B for criminal conspiracy unless tried alongside the public servant accused, and that without sanction against the judge, the entire case stood vitiated. Countering this, senior panel counsel Zoheb Hossain, appearing with Lokesh Narang for the ED, contended that the plea of want of sanction was not available to Bansal as he was a private individual, not a public servant. The ED further submitted that even if proceedings against a public servant were barred for lack of sanction, it would not automatically nullify the prosecution of private individuals accused of aiding, abetting, or conspiring to commit offences under the PCA or under Section 120-B of the IPC. After Chief Justice Sheel Nagu had recused from hearing the matter as he had dealt with it on administrative side, Bansal's plea was listed before Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul. Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing virtually for the petitioner, sought an adjournment due to network issues. Considering the request, the bench adjourned the matter to July 30 for final arguments. The corruption FIR quashing plea in Roop Bansal vs State of Haryana has seen unusual twists and turns. It was first listed before Justice Anoop Chitkara in October 2023. After change in roster, the matter was listed before Justice NS Shekhawat who recused from hearing the case in January this year. The matter was then listed before Justice Kaul, before whom it was dismissed as withdrawn. It then went to Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu, who heard the matter and reserved for judgment on May 2, with pronouncement due on May 12, when the Chief Justice, citing 'the interest of the institution' and the need to 'preserve and protect the reputation and dignity' of Justice Sindhu, reassigned it to himself on May 10. This case was assigned to Justice Kaul after Chief Justice Nagu recused himself from hearing it on July 3, citing the need to uphold the principle that justice must not only be done but 'should also appear to have been done.'
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
HC upholds eviction of unauthorised structure on govt land
Cuttack: Orissa high court has upheld eviction proceedings against a religious structure situated on govt land under Rajgangpur Municipality area of Sundargarh district. In a July 18 judgment, Justice S K Panigrahi dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner, bringing to an end a decade-old legal battle. The structure is said to be more than 40 years old. The petitioner had challenged the 2015 eviction order passed by the sub-collector-cum-estate officer (Sadar), Sundargarh, under the Orissa Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972. The order was later upheld by the Sundargarh district collector in 2016. The petitioner contended that the land, recorded as rasta (road), could not be treated as "public premises" under the Act and cited the existence of long-standing structures used for religious purposes. However, the court rejected the argument, observing that the land fell squarely within the definition of "public premises" as it lies within the municipal limits of Rajgangpur, and is recorded in the name of the state govt. "The classification as rasta affirms its public character and reinforces its inclusion within the scope of the statute," the court noted. Justice Panigrahi held that the Orissa Public Premises Act provides a clear legal mechanism for evicting unauthorised occupants from public land and that no distinction could be drawn between different types of govt land when it comes to enforcement. The court further observed that even if the structure was serving public or religious purposes, such unauthorised occupation cannot be regularised without due legal sanction.
