The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL Nos.5799 & 5796 of 2024 (Applications for bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., 1973) In BLAPL No.5799 of 2024 Ramesh Chandra Padhi …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party For Petitioner - Mr. A. Tripathy, Advocate. Mr. A. K. Jena, Advocate. For Opposite Party - Mr. T.K.Acharya, ASC In BLAPL No.5796 of 2024 Laxmi Narayan Das …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party For Petitioner - For Opposite Party -
Legal Reasoning
Mr. A. Tripathy, Advocate. Mr. A. K. Jena, Advocate. Mr. T. K. Acharya, ASC CORAM: MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA Date of Hearing :05.11.2024 :: Date of Order :07.11.2024 A.C. Behera, J. Since both the bail applications have arisen out of one case vide C.T. Case No.471 of 2024 in connection Page 1 of 8 {{ 2 }} with Soro P.S. Case No.292 of 2024 pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Soro, Balasore, then both the bail applications have been taken up together analogously for their final disposal through this common order. 2. The petitioners are in jail custody since 24.04.2024 and 26.04.2024 respectively having been implicated under Sections 420, 294, 506 read with 34 of the IPC, 1860 on the allegations alleged against them (petitioners) on the basis of the F.I.R lodged by the informant (Susanta Kumar Das) on dated 03.04.2024 before the IIC, Soro P.S. that, his father was a kerosene control dealer in Soro area, but alluring him for providing kerosene wholesaler license of Basudevpur area, the petitioner (Laxmi Narayan Das) took him (informant) to the petitioner (Ramesh Chandra Padhi) stating falsely that, Ramesh Chandra Padhi has his close relationship with the Chief Secretary of Odisha and the petitioner (Ramesh Chandra Padhi) can issue Kerosene wholesaler dealer license for Basudevpur area in his favour through Chief Secretary by using Government machineries and for such purpose, he (petitioner-Ramesh Chandra Padhi) first took Rs.10,00,000/- (rupess ten lakh) from the informant on dated 15.05.2015 and 15 days thereafter, (petitioner- Ramesh Chandra Padhi) took Rs.6,00,000/- from him (informant) and accordingly, in the first and second phase, he (petitioner- Ramesh Chandra Padhi) took Rs.16,00,000/- (rupees sixteen lakhs) from the informant for making arrangements at Government level for issuance of Kerosene wholesaler license in his favour and five months thereafter i.e. on dated 28.11.2015 he (petitioner-Ramesh Chandra Padhi) took another Rs.15,00,000/- (rupees fifteen lakhs) Page 2 of 8 {{ 3 }} from him (informant) in order to provide the same to the Chief Secretary of Odisha and thereafter, he (petitioner) took Rs.27,00,000/- from the informant and accordingly, for issuance of kerosene wholesaler license in favour of the informant through the Government, he (petitioner-Ramesh Chandra Padhi) took Rs.58,00,000/- (rupees fifty eight lakhs) in total from the informant fraudulently defrauding him (informant), as no kerosene wholesaler license was issued by the Government in favour of the informant. Subsequent thereto, the kerosene depot system was abolished by the Government. Thereafter, the informant requested the petitioners to return his money i.e. Rs.58,00,000/- (rupees fifty eight lakhs), but the petitioners avoided to return the same by taking various pleas. Thereafter, the informant came to know that, they (petitioners) are professional frauds. When, on dated 02.04.2024 in evening at about 8 to 8:30 P.M., the informant found the petitioner (Ramesh Chandra Padhi) near his house, then, he (informant) requested him to return his money, but the petitioner (Ramesh Chandra Padhi) suddenly annoyed upon him (informant) and abused him in obscene languages and threatened him to kill engaging Gundas. For which, without getting any way, the informant lodged F.I.R. on dated 03.04.2024 before the IIC, Soro P.S. against the petitioners. 3. Basing upon such F.I.R., the case vide Soro P.S. No.292 of 2024 under Sections 420, 294 & 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC, 1860 was registered against the petitioners and investigation was started. During the investigation, the petitioner (Ramesh Chandra Padhi) was arrested on dated 24.04.2024 and was forwarded to the Page 3 of 8 {{ 4 }} Court after being booked with the aforesaid offences and accordingly, since then he (petitioner-Ramesh Chandra Padhi) is in jail custody since 24.04.2024. During the investigation of the case, the petitioner (Laxmi Narayan Das) was brought on remand to this case on dated 26.04.2024 from Soro P.S. Case No.360 of 2024 and since then he (petitioner-Laxmi Narayan Das) is in jail custody having been implicated with the aforesaid offences. Accordingly, the petitioners are in jail custody since 24.04.2024 and 26.04.2024 respectively. 4. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted charge-sheet on dated 15.06.2024 under Sections 420, 294 & 506 read with 34 of the IPC, 1860 against both the petitioners keeping the investigation open under Section 173 (8) of the Cr.P.C, 1973. 5. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted for the release of the petitioners on bail contending that, they (petitioners) are in jail custody since 24.04.2024 and 26.04.2024 respectively i.e. for more than 6 months and in the meantime, the investigation of the case has already been completed due to submission of charge- sheet on dated 15.06.2024 and also submitted that, the petitioner (Ramesh Chandra Padhi) is agreed for depositing of Rs.7,00,000/- (rupees seven lakhs) as security for his release on bail, to which, the learned additional standing counsel for the State vehemently objected contending that, when the investigation of the case has been kept open and when the petitioners have committed economic Page 4 of 8 {{ 5 }} offences defrauding the informant for huge amounts i.e. Rs.58,00,000/- (rupees fifty eight lakhs), then in this nature of allegations, they (petitioners) should not be allowed to go on bail. When the presence of the petitioners in custody before the Investigating Officer for further investigation of the case may not be required due to the completion of the investigation of the case against them (petitioners) during their staying inside the bar for more than 6 months and when the trial of the case against the petitioners has not been commenced inspite of submission of the charge-sheet against them (petitioners) since 15.06.2024 due to keeping up of the investigation open for further investigation and when no reason has been assigned in the charge-sheet about the cause of keeping the investigation open and when, all the offences alleged against the petitioners are magisterial triable in nature and when the Investigating Agency has not come forward with a case for the requirements of the petitioners for their any further custodial interrogation and when the petitioners are local persons having their permanent houses and homesteads under the jurisdiction of Soro and Khaira police stations respectively and when there is no material in the record to show that, the presence of the petitioners during trial of the case cannot be secured in case of their release on bail or they shall tamper with the prosecution evidence and when nothing appears from the record to show that, during the staying of the petitioners inside the jail, they (petitioners) have avoided to cooperate with the investigation and when there is no certainty, when the trial of the case against them (petitioners) shall be completed and when the main purpose/object of the bail is to secure Page 5 of 8 {{ 6 }} the appearance of the accused persons during trial of the case, then at this juncture, by applying the principles of law relating to the bail enunciated in like nature economical offences related cases by the Apex Court reported in 2011 (4) Crimes 323 (SC): Sanjay Chandra Vrs. C.B.I. and 2024 (4) Crimes-41 (S.C.): V. Senthil Balaji Vrs. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, it is felt proper to allow the petitioners to go on bail pending the trial of the case against them with stringent conditions looking to the interest of the informant, witnesses and prosecution, because the keeping up of the investigation open only by the Investigating Agency after submission of the charge-sheet on dated 15.06.2024 cannot be taken as an instrument in the hands of the police/prosecution for detention of the petitioners inside the jail for an indefinite long period, when there is no possibility of completion of the trial of the case against the petitioners within a reasonable time. 7. Therefore, both the bail applications filed by the petitioners are allowed. 8. They (petitioners) are allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.5,00,000/- (rupess five lakh) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin over the matter on the following conditions i.e.:- (i) they (petitioners) shall cooperate with the further investigation of the case by remaining present in the places as and when directed by the Investigating Officer. (ii) they shall not directly and indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts or any witnesses of the case in any Page 6 of 8 {{ 7 }} manner or shall not make any attempt to influence them in any manner so as to dissuading them from disclosing such facts before the Court or any other Authority including the Investigating Agency. (iii) they shall remain present personally before the Court on the dates fixed for hearing of the case. (iv) they shall surrender their respective passports, if any, (if not already surrendered) before the Court in seisin over the matter and in case, they are not the holder of the same, they shall swear affidavits for the same. If they have already surrendered their respective passports before the learned Court, then that fact should also be supported by affidavits. (v) Out of two petitioners, the petitioner in BLAPL No.5799 of 2024 i.e. Ramesh Chandra Padhi shall furnish cash security to the tune of Rs.7,00,000/- (rupees seven lakh) only in the shape of STDR obtained from any Nationalized Bank initially for a period of 6 months renewable from time to time till final disposal of the case with an undertaking by him (Ramesh Chandra Padhi) that, the payment of the matured amount as against the STDR shall be subject to any order passed under BNSS, 2023 including an order under Section 395 of the BNSS, 2023 by the Trial Court; but in case of violation of any one of the aforesaid conditions by the petitioners, learned Court in seisin over the matter is authorized to cancel Page 7 of 8 {{ 8 }} their respective bail orders out-rightly without seeking any permission from this Court for the same. 9. Accordingly, both the bail applications filed by the
Decision
petitioners are disposed of finally. 10. Grant certified copy of this order to the petitioners on their proper applications. Orissa High Court, Cuttack. 07.11.2024//Utkalika Nayak// Junior Stenographer (A.C. Behera), Judge. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: UTKALIKA NAYAK Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 08-Nov-2024 11:07:50 Page 8 of 8