JUSTICE v. NARASINGH DATE OF HEARING
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ABLAPL No.2045 of 2025 Susanta Kumar Samal …. Petitioner Mr. S.S. Rao, Sr. Advocate Mr. A. Mishra, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. P.S. Nayak, AGA ABLAPL No.1715 of 2025 Soumya Sankar Chakra @ Raja …. Petitioner Mr. A. Mohanty, Sr. Advocate Mr. A. Mohanty, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. P.S. Nayak, AGA ABLAPL No.1775 of 2025 1. Sudhanshu Sekhar …. Petitioners Naik 2. Samir Kumar Jena 3. Sadasiba Samal Mr. A. Mohanty, Sr. Advocate Mr. A. Mohanty, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. P.S. Nayak, AGA Page 1 of 18 CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH DATE OF HEARING :11.03.2025 DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 12.03.2025 V. Narasingh, J. 1. Since all the ABLAPLs relate to the same FIR, on the consent of the learned Senior Counsels for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the State, they are taken up together for consideration
Decision
and are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Heard Mr. S.S. Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner in ABLAPL No.2045 of 2025 and Mr. A. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners in ABLAPL Nos.1715 and 1775 of 2025 and Mr. P.S. Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 3. The Petitioners are seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with C.T. Case No.04(C) of 2025 pending on the file of learned ADJ-cum-OPID, Balasore, arising out of E.O.W. Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No.3 of 2025 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 406/ 409/ 420/ 467/ 468/ 471/ 120-B of IPC. 4. It is apt to note here that none of the Petitioners have been named as accused in the aforementioned P.S. Case registered by Economic Page 2 of 18 Offence Wing and it is also on record that both the named accused persons Manas Ranjan Barik and Utkal Das have been taken into custody. 5. It is the allegation of the prosecution that because of political patronage without being a member of Gandha Mardhan Loading Agency & Transporting Co-operative Society Ltd., Suakati registered under the Orissa Co-Operative Societies Act, 1962, the Petitioner (Soumya Sankar Chakra @ Raja) in ABLAPL No.1715 of 2025 exercised such clout that at his behest the illegalities were committed and the other Petitioners have also had an active role in siphoning off the funds of the society. 6. It is further submitted, referring to the materials on record, that the main object of the society was to promote economic interest of its members through wagon loading and unloading, transporting and supply of labours and goods etc. in the Gandhamardhan Mines area under the Odisha Mining Corporation, Suakati and other companies in the said area as and when required and for fulfilling such avowed object, members were enrolled in different classes i.e. A, B and C. 7. It is stated that since large scale irregularities were alleged in the FIR, found to be prima facie established, the FIR named accused Page 3 of 18 were taken into custody and custodial interrogation of the Petitioners is imperative to unearth the truth. 8. To fortify their assertion, the prosecution has filed an objection to the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail for the Petitioners in both the cases i.e. ABLAPL Nos.1715 and 1775 of 2025 and a reply to the same has also been submitted by the Petitioners. 9. Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners in ABLAPL Nos.1715 and 1775 of 2025 submits that admittedly the Petitioners are neither named accused nor the members of the cooperative society in question and the informant is no way connected with the affairs of the society nor is a resident of the area yet, on the basis of an FIR filed at his behest witch hunt is being done in which the Petitioners have become the scapegoats. 10. Such a submission regarding the status of the Informant is reiterated by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Rao appearing for the Petitioner in ABLAPL No.2045 of 2025. 11. It is the further submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner (Soumya Sankar Chakra @ Raja) in ABLAPL No.1715 of 2025 that he joined the investigation and only because he did not succumb to the pressure and did not make any Page 4 of 18 self-incriminating statement, keeping in view the constitutional embargo under Article 20(3) of the Constitution regarding self-incrimination, that ought not to weigh with this Court in considering his pre-arrest bail application. 12. To substantiate their allegations, learned Additional Government Advocate for the EOW, Mr. P.S. Nayak, inter alia, relied on the statement of one Manoranjan Khuntia, who is a „A‟ category member of the Cooperative Society in question. It is stated that Petitioner (Soumya Sankar Chakra @ Raja) in ABLAPL No.1715 of 2025 without even being a member of the society was running the affairs of the society along with his cronies including the Petitioner (Susanta Kumar Samal) in ABLAPL No.2045 of 2025 and a parallel office was running in the house of the Petitioner (Susanta Kumar Samal). Referring to the materials on record on the basis of the ongoing investigation, it is submitted that the amount of Rs.7,36,74,000/- (Rupees Seven Crores Thirty-Six Lakhs Seventy-Four Thousand) has been withdrawn from the account of co-operative society via self-cheques out of which sum of Rs.2,76,70,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Seventy-Six Lakhs Seventy Thousand), sum of Rs.95,40,000/- (Rupees Ninety-Five Lakhs Forty Page 5 of 18 Thousand) and a sum of Rs.3,64,64,000/- (Rupees Three Crore Sixty-Four Lakhs Sixty-Four Thousand) has been withdrawn by the Petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 3 (Sudhanshu Sekhar Naik, Samir Kumar Jena and Sadasiba Samal) in ABLAPL No.1775 of 2025 respectively, who are stated to be the key associates of the Petitioner (Mr. Soumya Sankar Chakra @ Raja) in ABLAPL No.1715 of 2025. 13. It is the allegation of the prosecution that the said amount in the name of periphery development work was being siphoned off. The photostat copies of the self- cheques of the aforesaid three accused relating to such withdrawal were placed for perusal of the Court. 14. Learned counsel for the State also relied on the reports of the Block Development Officers of Sadar Block, Keonjhar and Banspal and of the Regional Manager, Regional Office, Gandhmardan of OMC, Odisha that no periphery work has been executed by the society in question. It is revealed from the statement of the Regional Officer, Gandhamardan that the OMC has undertaken CSR work in 14 villages and it is stated that the society in question has not taken up any developmental work inside the mines area as per Page 6 of 18 the records available with the OMC which is a public sector undertaking. 15. The prosecution also relies on the statement of one Premananda Barik recorded under Section 183(5) of the BNSS, 2023. He is the proprietor of a petrol pump namely, Maa Kali Kishan Seva Kendra (KSK), Pandapada. It is borne out from his statement that he had business dealings with one Sankar Roadways which admittedly belongs to the Petitioner (Mr. Soumya Sankar Chakra @ Raja) in ABLAPL No.1715 of 2025. It comes to light from his statement that for squaring of the bills in respect of Sankar Roadways, the cheques of the co-operative societies in question were submitted and it is stated that the amount of Rs.8 Crore has been paid by the co-operative society in question on account of the bills pertaining to the Sankar Transport. The funds flow statement from Gandhamardhan Loading Agency to Maa Kali KSK was also placed during course of hearing. 16. On perusal of the case Diary, it is revealed that an amount of Rs.1,55,95,625/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty-Five Lakhs Ninety-Five Thousand Six Hundred Twenty-Five) has been transferred from the account of Petitioner No.3 (Sadasiba Samal) in Page 7 of 18 ABLAPL No.1775 of 2025 to the account of the wife of the Petitioner (Mr. Soumya Sankar Chakra @ Raja) in ABLAPL No.1715 of 2025. 17. It is the further case of the prosecution, on scrutiny of the statements of the bank accounts of Gandhamardhan Cooperative Society that an amount of Rs.1,60,47,140/- (Rupees One Crore Sixty Lakhs Forty-Seven Thousand One Hundred Forty) has been transferred to the accounts of Sankar Roadways and that during investigation, it came to the light that there is no voucher, bill or any ledger accounts details qua the payment of such an amount to the Sankar Roadways of which the Petitioner (Mr. Soumya Sankar Chakra @ Raja) in ABLAPL No.1715 of 2025 is the proprietor. 18. It is reiterated that during the course of interrogation the Petitioner (Mr. Soumya Sankar Chakra @ Raja) in BLAPL No.1715 of 2025 did not extend any meaningful cooperation in the investigation and hence, the objection to his pre- arrest bail. 19. To fortify his submission, learned counsel for the State relied on the following judgments; i. Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2013) 7 SCC 439 Page 8 of 18 ii. P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24 iii. Pravata Kumar Tripathy vs. Union of India (C.B.I.), 2014 SCC Online Ori 407 More particularly reliance was placed on paragraph 72 of the judgment in the case of P. Chidambaram (Supra), which reads as under; and from intent behind legislative “72. We are conscious of the fact that the the introduction of Section 438 CrPC is to safeguard the individual’s personal liberty and to protect him from the possibility of being humiliated being subjected to unnecessary police custody. However, the court must also keep in view that a criminal offence is not just an offence against an individual, rather the larger societal is at stake. interest Therefore, a delicate balance is required to be established between the two rights- safeguarding the personal liberty of an individual and the societal interest. It cannot be said that refusal to grant anticipatory bail would amount to denial of the rights conferred upon the appellant under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.” (Emphasized) 20. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners Mr. Rao and Mr. Mohanty submit that Page 9 of 18 the case is a fall out of political vendetta and since all the allegations are based more or less on documentary evidence, the custodial interrogation is not necessary and relying on the order dated 21.03.2023 passed in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 452 submit that the Apex Court has clarified that the directions in the said case dated 11.07.2022 in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr., (2020) 10 SCC 51 apply in equal measure to cases of anticipatory bail and the observation which is germane is extracted hereunder; “……………..we would like to clarify that what we have enunciated qua bail would equally apply to anticipatory bail cases. Anticipatory bail after all is one of the species of a bail”. 21. Referring to the same, it is submitted with vehemence that since the case is based on documentary evidence and the Petitioners are not the named accused merely basing on the statement of the co-accused recorded during investigation, Petitioners should not suffer the ignominy of being taken into custody. Page 10 of 18 22. It is the further submission of the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Mohanty on behalf of the Petitioner in ABLAPL No.1715 of 2025 that in terms of the direction of this Court the Petitioner has joined the investigation and is all along ready and willing to cooperate with the ongoing investigation which is also the stand of the other accused persons canvassed in the connected anticipatory bail applications. Hence, custodial interrogation is not warranted. 23. It is further submitted that all the Petitioners have roots firmly entrenched in the society as such there is no chance of their absconding or interfering with the ongoing investigation and that should weigh with this Court in considering the prayer for pre-arrest bail and in the event the Petitioners are granted pre-arrest bail they can be put to strict terms so as to ensure effective investigation. 24. The parameters for granting an anticipatory bail in an economic offence has been recently propounded by the Apex Court in the case of Devinder Kumar Bansal vs. State of Punjab, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 488. The Apex Court has reiterated the basic distinction of a bail and pre- arrest bail. The paragraph 23 and 24 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder; Page 11 of 18 “23. The presumption of innocence, by itself, cannot be the sole consideration for grant of anticipatory bail. The presumption of innocence is one of the considerations, which the court should keep in mind while considering the plea for anticipatory bail. The salutary rule is to balance the cause of the accused and the cause of public justice. Over solicitous homage to the accused’s liberty can, sometimes, defeat the cause of public justice. If liberty is to be denied to an 24. accused to ensure corruption free society, then the courts should not hesitate in denying such liberty. Where overwhelming considerations in the nature aforesaid require denial of anticipatory bail, it has to be denied. It is altogether a different thing to say that once the investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed, the court may consider to grant regular bail to a public in of servant-accused corruption.” indulging This Court is conscious of the fact that the Apex Court in the case of Devinder Kumar Bansal (supra) was dealing with the corruption charges against a public servant however the principles governing the consideration of prayer for anticipatory bail apply in equal measure in accusations of present nature. Page 12 of 18 25. In the case of State REP. by the C.B.I. vs. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187, the Apex Court while balancing the right of an accused vis- (cid:224)-vis the Investigating Agency has acknowledged the qualitative difference in response to interrogation when an accused is not “ensconced” by the protective umbrella of pre-arrest bail. Paragraph-6 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder for convenience of reference; “6. We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated, Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the el custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police Page 13 of 18 officers would conduct themselves in a those responsible manner and entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.” In the case of Devinder Kumar Bansal that 26. (supra), the Apex Court referred with approval to the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. vs. Ram Kishna Balothia, (1995) 3 SCC 221 which held that an anticipatory bail cannot be granted as a matter of right and it is essentially a statutory right and its non-application to certain special category of offences cannot be considered as violative of Article 21 [Paragraph-18 of Judgment of the Apex Court in Devinder Kumar Bansal (supra)] and it has also reiterated the observation of 41st Report of the Law Commission that: “…………. power to grant anticipatory bail should be exercised in very exceptional cases.” (Emphasized) 27. The prayer of the Petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail has to be considered on the touch stone of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Devinder Kumar Bansal (supra) and also keeping in view the qualitative difference as noted by the Apex Court in interrogation when Page 14 of 18 an accused is not protected by pre-arrest bail in Anil Sharma (supra). 28. During the course of hearing, it has come to the fore that the Petitioner (Soumya Sankar Chakra @ Raja) in ABLAPL No.1715 of 2025 is cited as an accused in the following cases; 1. Keonjhar Sadar P.S. Case No.189 of 2021 2. Daitari P.S. Case No.14 of 2024 3. Keonjhar Town P.S. Case No.122 of 2005 4. Keonjhar Town P.S. Case No.71 of 2010 5. Keonjhar Town P.S. Case No.192 of 2012 6. Keonjhar Town P.S. Case No.195 of 2012 7. Keonjhar Town P.S. Case No.194 of 2012 8. Keonjhar Town P.S. Case No.193 of 2012 9. Pandapada P.S. Case No.65 of 2014 10. Keonjhar Town P.S. Case No.99 of 2019 11. Keonjhar Town P.S. Case No.308 of 2024 12. Keonjhar Town P.S. Case No.17 of 2025 13. Keonjhar Town P.S. Case No.18 of 2025 28-A. With reference to the cases at Serial No.12, it is stated that the said case is at the instance of the very same informant who is the informant in the case at hand and the Petitioner has been protected by pre-arrest bail. Hence, it is Page 15 of 18 submitted that to feed fat his grudge this false case has been foisted against the Petitioner. 29. It is also stated that the Petitioner No.3 (Sadasiba Samal) in ABLAPL No.1775 of 2025 is implicated in the following three cases; 1. Keonjhar Town P.S. Case No.308 of 2024 2. Keonjhar Town P.S. Case No.17 of 2025 3. Keonjhar Town P.S. Case No.18 of 2025 And, in the cases at Serial No.1, the prosecution has taken recourse to the procedure under Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. and so far as the cases at Serial Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, the Petitioner is protected by pre-arrest bail by virtue of orders passed by this Court in ABLAPL No.576 and 510 of 2025 respectively. 30. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Rao appearing for Petitioner (Susanta Kumar Samal) in ABLAPL No.2045 of 2025 submits that he has been cited as an accused in Keonjhar Sadar P.S. Case No.141 of 2002 under Section 341/323/506/34 of IPC and section 25/27 arms act. 31. It is the further submission of learned Senior Counsel Mr. Rao for the Petitioner (Susanta Kumar Samal) in ABLAPL No.2045 of 2025 that the Page 16 of 18 Petitioner is a „C‟ category member of the society and he is unnecessarily being victimized. 32. Considering the nature of allegations qua the Petitioner (Soumya Sankar Chakra @ Raja) in ABLAPL No.1715 of 2025 who according to the prosecution is the principal accused and the prima facie link, which the prosecution has been able to establish between the Petitioner in ABLAPL No.1715 of 2025 with Petitioners in ABLAPL No.1775 as well as ABLAPL No.2045 of 2025 which has been referred to herein above, this Court finds force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the State that the custodial interrogation is imperative in the case at hand to unravel the truth and interrogation would become a “mere ritual” in the event they are protected by pre-arrest bail. 33. On a perspicuous analysis of materials on record and on perusal of the case diary, this Court is not persuaded to hold that the Petitioners have been able to make out an exceptional case for grant of pre-arrest bail. 34. All the ABLAPLs being devoid of merit are accordingly rejected. 35. 36. The interim orders stand vacated. It is needless to state that the observations made herein are only for the purpose Page 17 of 18 of consideration of the prayer of the Petitioners for pre-arrest bail and in the event the Petitioners are taken into custody and seek regular bail the same shall be considered on its own merit without being influenced by the judgment of this Court in rejecting the prayer of the Petitioners for anticipatory bail. (V. NARASINGH) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 12th March, 2025/Santoshi Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTOSHI LENKA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 12-Mar-2025 18:31:13 Page 18 of 18