Kaifi Khan State of Odisha v. … Opposite Party Mr.G.N. Rout, ASC Ms.Bini Mishra, Advocate (for informant) CORAM: JUSTICE SAVITRI
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.5169 of 2024 Kaifi Khan State of Odisha … Petitioner Mr. Bidyadhar Mansing, Advocate vs … Opposite Party Mr.G.N. Rout, ASC Ms.Bini Mishra, Advocate (for informant) CORAM: JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO Order No. 01. 1.
Decision
ORDER 23.05.2024 (Through hybrid mode) This is the third application of the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed in this Court in connection with Mangalabag P.S. Case No.114 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No.334 of 2023, pending in the file of the learned J.M.F.C., Cuttack where chargesheet dated 24.06.2023 has been submitted against the present petitioner-Kaifi Khan, one Sk. Ismail and Amir Khan under Sections 419, 420, 403, 120 (B), 34 of IPC keeping the investigation open for collection of bank statements, arrest of other accused persons, recovery of cheated amount, examination of more witnesses as well as further evidence in this case. Thereafter chargesheet dated 22.12.2023 has been submitted against the present petitioner-Kaifi Khan, Sk. Israel, Amir Khan, Samir Khan and Md. Sakil for commission of offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 403, 120 (B), 506, 34 of IPC keeping investigation Page 1 of 6 open for collection of more evidence, arrest of other accused persons, compliance to the instructions of submission note and further course of investigation. During further investigation one Sk. Aspak @ Mohammad Aspak has been arrested. 2. This application has been listed before me as BLAPL No. 10930 of 2023 filed by the co-accused has been disposed of by me on 16.11.2023. 3. BLAPL No. 14705 of 2023 filed by the petitioner earlier before this Court had been disposed of on 17.01.2024 taking note of submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation of the informant that she was cheated of 62 lakhs is not supported by documents or bank statement and that to show his bona fides, the petitioner is willing to return an amount of Rs.11,00,000/- to the informant. In view of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is prepared to refund the amount of Rs.11,00,000/-, the BLAPL had been disposed granting liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh application for bail after returning the amount of Rs.11,00,000/- to the informant. 4. Thereafter the petitioner had filed an I.A. with the following prayer: “In view of the above facts and circumstances as stated above, Page 2 of 6 Your Lordship may be graciously pleased to modify the order dated 17.01.2024 by granting bail on imposing stringent conditions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper.” The I.A. was rejected on 12.03.2024 as not maintainable . The petitioner was granted liberty to file a fresh bail application. 5. BLAPL No. 2809 of 2024 was filed by the petitioner in this Court without approaching the learned Court below for bail . The BLAPL was dismissed on 02.05.2024 considering that he has four criminal antecedents which are similar in nature and had approached this Court after disposal of BLPAL No. 14705 of 2023 without approaching the learned court below and without making any payment. 6. The petitioner thereafter moved the learned court below for bail and the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack has rejected his prayer in BLAPL No. 614 of 2024 vide order dated 16.05.2024 observing that the petitioner has similar criminal antecedents and has not complied with the order of this Court . 7. The BL APL numbers have been indicated in the cause title , but neither details of the bail applications filed earlier in this Court nor the orders passed by this Court have been mentioned in the Bail Application .This violates the direction of the Supreme Court in the case of Kusha Duruka v. The State of Odisha: 2024 INSC 46. Page 3 of 6 8. The prosecution allegation in brief are that the petitioner-Kaifi Khan and his associates have cheated the informant of a total amount of Rs.62 lakhs having taken various amounts on different occasions . She had obtained most of the money by taking gold loan from Muthoot Finance by handing over 17 tolas of gold . Except for Rs 12,50,000/- the rest of the amount had been paid through account transfer . When she tried to ask him for return of some of the money, he avoided her calls and she found that he had used the money to buy expensive car and sports bike. During course of investigation, raid was conducted in the house of the petitioner and incriminating articles along with duplicate diamond, gold like metal, lots of metal lockets, several documents pertaining to bank accounts, cheque books, bonds, mobile phones as well as different precious brands of wrist watch, two luxurious cars along with one royal Enfield Bullet and cash of Rs.2,76,410/- were seized from the possession of the petitioner. 9. Mr. Bidyadhar Mansing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 24.04.2023 and as all the offences in the case are triable by the learned Magistrate First Class and the investigation in the case is over, he should be released on bail. He further submits that the petitioner is willing to comply with any condition which may be imposed by this Court for releasing him on Page 4 of 6 bail including deposit of some amount in instalments . 10. Ms. Bini Mishra, learned counsel submits that she has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the informant on 21.05.2024 and has been granted receipt No. is 67557 of 2024. She opposes the prayer for bail stating that the petitioner is a habitual offender as he has five similar criminal antecedents for which he should not be released on bail especially when investigation in the case is pending. She further submits that in spite of his own undertaking in BLAPL No. 14705 of 2023 to return Rs.11,00,000/- to the informant, he has not done so, hence he does not deserve to be granted bail. 11. Mr. G.N. Rout, learned Additional Standing Counsel opposes the prayer for bail stating that the petitioner has five criminal antecedents of similar nature and investigation is still pending and without depositing any amount to the learned court below, the petitioner has approached this Court for which his prayer for bail does not need any consideration. 12. In view of the conduct of the petitioner, who is a habitual offender (has numerous criminal antecedents of similar nature), pendency of further investigation, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail at this stage . 13. The BLAPL is accordingly dismissed. Page 5 of 6 14. It is open to the petitioner to move for bail afresh after completion of further investigation or if there is undue in completion of further investigation. 15. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. ………………………... (SAVITRI RATHO) JUDGE puspa Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PUSPANJALI MOHAPATRA Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 24-May-2024 19:32:53 Page 6 of 6