The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.5807 of 2024 (An application for bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., 1973) Ramesh Chandra Padhi …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party For Petitioner - Mr.A. Tripathy, Advocate. Mr. A. K. Jena, Advocate. For Opposite Party -
Legal Reasoning
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. The bail application has arisen out of C.T. Case No.458 of 2024 in connection with Soro P.S. Case No.285 of 2024 pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Soro, Balasore. 2. The petitioner is in jail custody having been implicated with the offences under Sections 420, 294, 506 of the IPC, 1860 on the allegation of cheating the informant by taking Rs.8,00,000/- (rupees eight lakhs) only from him fraudulently on dated 10.06.2017 by giving him false assurance for issuance of a Kerosene Depot License in his name by using Government machineries. But, in spite of taking such money from the informant by the petitioner, no Kerosene Depot License was provided to him (informant), then the informant requested the petitioner for returning of his money, but in order to return of Rs.4,00,000/- out of Rs.8,00,000/-, the petitioner issued a cheque bearing No.038225 at Axis Bank from his account for Rs.4,00,000/- on dated 10.08.2017. But, the said cheque was Page 1 of 5 {{ 2 }} bounced. For which, he (informant) has filed a cheque bounce case against the petitioner and thereafter, the informant lodged F.I.R. on dated 01.04.2024 against the petitioner before the IIC, Soro P.S. alleging the aforesaid allegations against him. Basing upon such F.I.R., the case vide Soro P.S. Case No.285 of 2024 under Sections 420, 294, 506 of the IPC, 1860 was registered against the petitioner and investigation was started. During investigation, the petitioner (Ramesh Chandra Padhi) was brought on remand to this case from Soro P.S. Case No.292 of 2024 on dated 26.04.2024 and since then he (petitioner) is in jail custody. 3. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted charge-sheet on dated 24.06.2024 under Sections 420, 294, 506 of the IPC, 1860 against the petitioner keeping the investigation open under Section 173 (8) of the Cr.P.C, 1973. 4. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted for the release of the petitioner on bail contending that, he (petitioner) is in jail custody 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 24.06.2024, 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 petitioner has committed economic offences defrauding the informant for huge amounts i.e. Rs.8,00,000/- (rupees eight lakhs), then in this nature of allegations, he (petitioner) should not be allowed to go on bail. Page 2 of 5 {{ 3 }} When the presence of the petitioner in custody before the Investigating Officer for further investigation of the case may not be required due to completion of the investigation of the case against him (petitioner) during his staying inside the jail for more than 6 months and when the trial of the case against him (petitioner) has not been commenced inspite of submission of the charge-sheet against him (petitioner) since 24.06.2024 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 petitioner are magisterial triable in nature and when the Investigating Agency has not come forward with a case for the requirements of the petitioner for his any further custodial interrogation and when the petitioner is a local person under the jurisdiction of Soro Police Station and when there is no material in the record to show that, the presence of the petitioner during trial of the case cannot be secured in case of his release on bail or he shall tamper with the prosecution evidence and when nothing appears from the record to show that, during the staying of the petitioner inside the jail, he (petitioner) has avoided to cooperate with the investigation and when there is no certainty, when the trial of the case against the petitioner shall be completed and when the main purpose/object of the bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at the trial, 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 petitioner to go on bail pending the trial of the case against him with stringent conditions looking to the interest of the Page 3 of 5 {{ 4 }} 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 24.06.2024 cannot be taken as an instrument in the hands of the police/prosecution for detention of the petitioner inside the jail for an indefinite long period, when there is no possibility of completion of trial of the case against the petitioner within a reasonable time. 6. 7. Therefore, the bail application filed by the petitioner is allowed. He (petitioner) is 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) he (petitioner) shall cooperate with the further investigation of the case by remaining present in the places as and when directed by the Investigating Officer. (ii) he 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 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) he shall remain present personally before the Court on the dates fixed for hearing of the case and (iv) he shall surrender his passport, if any, (if not already surrendered) before the Court in seisin over the matter and in case, he is not the holder of the same, he shall swear an affidavit Page 4 of 5 {{ 5 }} for the same. If he has already surrendered his passport before the learned Court, then that fact should also be supported by an affidavit, but in case of violation of any one of the aforesaid conditions by the petitioner, learned Court in seisin over the matter is authorized to cancel his bail order out-rightly without seeking any permission from this Court for the same. 8. Accordingly, the bail application filed by the petitioner is disposed of finally. 9. Grant certified copy of this order to the petitioner on proper application. 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 5 of 5