The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.234 of 2025 (In the matter of an application Under Section 483 of BNSS) Akhila Prasad Mishra …. Petitioner State of Odisha …. Opposite Party -versus- For Petitioner : Mr. D.P.Nanda, Sr. Advocate along with Mr.B.Nayak, Advocate For Opposite Party : Mr. A.K.Apat, Addl. PP Dr.Menaka Guruswamy, Sr.Advocate along with Mr.S.Mohapatra, Advocate(Informant) CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:13.05.2025(ORAL) G. Satapathy, J. 1. This is a bail application U/S.483 of the BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Talcher PS Case No.641 of 2024 arising out of GR Case No. 1198 of 2024 pending in the Court of learned SDJM, Talcher being charge sheeted for BLAPL No. 234 of 2025 Page 1 of 12 commission of offences punishable U/Ss. 408/506/34 of IPC r/w Sections 66(C)/66(D) of Information Technology Act, on the allegation of siphoning away a sum of Rs. 87,79,231/- (Rupees Eighty Seven Lakhs Seventy Nine Thousand Two Hundred Thirty One) of the Informant. 2.
Legal Reasoning
In the course of hearing, Mr. Durga Prasad Nanda, learned Senior Counsel who enters appearance along with Mr. Biswajit Nayak, learned counsel for the Petitioner by filing an appearance memo, which is taken on record, submits that the Petitioner has been detained in custody since 08.08.2024, but in the meanwhile, substantial time has already been over, however, the custodial interrogation of the Petitioner has not been sought for by the Investigating Agency and thereby, there is hardly any question of custodial interrogation of the petitioner in this case and the offences with which the Petitioner is charge sheeted being purely revealing contractual dispute between the Petitioner and the Informant, there is hardly any requirement BLAPL No. 234 of 2025 Page 2 of 12 of keeping the Petitioner in custody and all the documents concerning this case having already been seized, the Petitioner may kindly be enlarged on bail. 2.1 On the contrary, Mr. A.K. Apat, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, however, vociferously opposes the bail application of the Petitioner by contending interalia that not only the Petitioner is involved in financial dispute, but also his conduct in siphoning away the money of his employer itself shows that the offences with which he is being charge sheeted are prima facie made out and he thereby, does not deserve to be released on bail. Mr. Apat, accordingly, prays to reject the bail application of the Petitioner. 2.2. In opposing the bail application of the petitioner, Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, learned Senior Counsel appearing virtually being assisted by Mr. S. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Informant submits that the order granting bail of the co- accused has been challenged before the Apex Court BLAPL No. 234 of 2025 Page 3 of 12 in SLP in which the State submitted that the misappropriation amount would go up to Rs. 2 Crores, but in the CRLMC filed by the informant for proper investigation and transfer of the investigation to EOW reveals that the misappropriation amount would go up to Rs. 7 Crores and some odd amount and the Petitioner having misappropriated such huge amount does not deserve any leniency. Further, Dr. Menaka Guruswamy submits that the investigation done by the State Investigating Agency is not only remiss, but also amiss and the State has not been able to conduct proper investigation in the matter to unearth the amount of misappropriation which would like to go up to Rs. 7 Crores and some odds. It is also submitted that in the event of transfer of investigation to EOW, there is fair chance that the EOW may seek for custodial interrogation of the petitioner and thereby, it would not be proper to release the Petitioner on bail, especially when CRLMC is pending before this Court for a direction in the matter of transfer of investigation to EOW. Dr. BLAPL No. 234 of 2025 Page 4 of 12 Menaka Guruswamy, learned Sr. Counsel accordingly, prays to reject the bail application of the Petitioner. 3. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against the Petitioner for misappropriation of the money of the complainant/Informant, but quantum and tune is still in dispute between the parties. Although the preliminary charge sheet submitted by the Investigating Agency reveals about misappropriation of around Rs. 87 Lakhs and some odds by the petitioner, but as per the submission of the parties, it appears that the State has gone to the extent of saying that such misappropriation amount may rise to Rs. 2 Crores. However, it is claimed on behalf of the Informant that such misappropriation amount would go up to Rs. 7 Crores or more. Whatever it may be, but the Petitioner was admittedly the Accountant of the Informant and it is alleged that during his absence for treatment, the petitioner has misappropriated his money, however, BLAPL No. 234 of 2025 Page 5 of 12 the jural relationship between the parties cannot be disputed at this stage. 4. Admittedly, bail proceeding are not recovery proceeding and this Court does not wish to pass any comment on the amount of misappropriation as alleged against the petitioner, but there is allegation against the Petitioner for misappropriation, however, such allegation needs to be proved before the Court of law, however, the quantum and allegation are question of facts which can be decided in a trial after full-fledged evidence is placed before the trial Court, but at this stage expecting custodial interrogation of the petitioner by the Economic Offence Wing (in short, the “EOW”) of the police, pending disposal of CRLMC No. 201 of 2025 which is filed by the informant for a direction to transfer the investigation to EOW is only speculative in nature, which cannot prevail over the liberty of a person as guaranteed by the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, however, such assertion/claim for transfer of investigation to EOW BLAPL No. 234 of 2025 Page 6 of 12 may not be found substantiated from the materials placed on record. No doubt, there is scope for the Informant to pray for transfer of investigation and there might be possibility of transfer of investigation, but in such event, there is also possibility that the EOW personnel may not seek for custodial interrogation of the petitioner, however, custodial detention always plays a significant role for consideration of bail. Moreover, the factors that are required to be considered in bail application are (i) the nature of accusation, (ii) strength, character and supporting materials collected by the Investigating Agency, (iii) criminal antecedent, (iv) reasonable apprehension of tampering with witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses, (v) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondance, (vi) character, behavior and standing of the accused and the circumstance which are peculiar to the accused and (vii) the flight risk of the accused and such other BLAPL No. 234 of 2025 Page 7 of 12 factors/materials which are relevant for the purpose considering the bail application of the accused. In this case, there is hardly any material to indicate that the Petitioner is involved in any other criminal cases and he poses flight risk or his attendance cannot be secured at the trial. Further, the investigation has already been completed and preliminary charge sheet has already been placed in this case, but till date, the Investigating Agency has allegedly found misappropriation amount to the tune of Rs. 87 Lakhs and some odds. Additionally, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has not misused the concession granted to him by way of interim bail. At this stage, keeping the detention of the Petitioner further would not be in the interest of justice. Besides, the principle that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” and legal position regarding presumption of innocence being a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, keeping the petitioner in confinement for an indefinite period on the expectation of EOW BLAPL No. 234 of 2025 Page 8 of 12 investigation would be against the right to liberty of the petitioner as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Further, the offences with which the petitioner has been charge sheeted are triable by Magistrate First Class and grant of bail being the discretionary power of the Court which needs to be exercised judicially, but keeping the petitioner in confinement for an indefinite period without the charge being proved against him is not in the interest of justice. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and discussions made hereinabove and on a conspectus of materials placed on record and taking into consideration the release of co-accused Tapaswini Mohapatra on bail in BLAPL No. 11875 of 2024 and regard being had to the pre-trial detention of the petitioner since 08.08.2024 with submission of charge sheet in the meanwhile and lastly, keeping in view the mandate of law laid down by Apex Court in Satendra Kumar Antil Vrs. CBI & another; BLAPL No. 234 of 2025 Page 9 of 12 (2022) 10 SCC 51, this Court without expressing any view on merits admits the petitioner to bail. 6. Hence, the prayer for bail application of the petitioner stands allowed and he be allowed to go on bail on furnishing an unencumbered property surety of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs), in addition to bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin of the case, on such terms and conditions as deem fit and proper by it with following conditions:- (i) the petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail, Petitioner (ii) the petitioner in the course of trial shall attend the trial Court on each date of posting without fail unless his attendance is dispensed with. In case the fails without sufficient cause to appear in the Court in accordance with the terms of the bail, the learned trial Court may proceed against the Petitioner for offence U/S.269 of BNS,2023 in accordance with law, (iii) the petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission till disposal of the case by intimating his BLAPL No. 234 of 2025 Page 10 of 12 present address of stay concerned Court, to the number(s), (iv) the Petitioner shall inform the Court as well as the Investigating Agency as to his place of residence during the trial by providing his mobile residential address, e-mail, if any, and other documents in support of proof of his residence. The Petitioner shall not change his address of residence without intimating to the Court and Investigating Agency, is issued and (v) In case the Petitioner misuse the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence, proclamation U/S.84 of the BNSS, 2023 Petitioner fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the learned trial initiate Court proceeding against him for offence U/S.209 of BNS, 2023 in accordance with law, is at liberty to (vi) the Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Agency as and when required and shall cooperate with the further investigation in the present case, (vii) the Petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, in the Court in seisin of the case till conclusion of trial, unless he is permitted to take back such passport to use for specific purpose during the pendency of the case and in case, the petitioner is not having any passport, he will file an BLAPL No. 234 of 2025 Page 11 of 12 affidavit before indicating the same. the trial Court The IO shall not detain the petitioner unnecessarily after recording his attendance beyond the time as stipulated. It is clarified that the Court in seisin of the case will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the petitioner without further reference to this Court, if any of the above conditions are violated or a case for cancellation of bail is otherwise made out. In the wake of aforesaid, the subsequent involvement of the petitioner in future for any grave/similar offence on prima facie accusations may be treated as a ground for cancellation of bail in this case. 7.
Decision
Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules. (G. Satapathy) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRIYAJIT SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 14-May-2025 18:51:28 Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 13th day of May, 2025/Priyajit BLAPL No. 234 of 2025 Page 12 of 12