The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 6025 of 2024 Chetlal Mandal … Petitioner Mr. G.R. Dhal, Advocate State of Odisha -versus- … Opposite Party Mr. T.K. Praharaj, SC CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY ORDER(ORAL) 07.08.2024 Order No. 04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2. This is the 3rd bail application U/S. 439 of Cr.P.C. by the Petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Cyber Crime P.S. Case No.02 of 2022 corresponding to C.T. Case No.525 of 2022 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar for commission of offence punishable U/Ss. 419/420/467/468/471/120-B/34 of the I.P.C. and U/Ss.66(C) and 67(D) of Information Technology Act, on the allegation of committing online fraud by obtaining Mobile Numbers, 16 digit Card No. and CVV expiry date with OTP of different innocent persons. 3.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. Gyana Ranjan Dhal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.K. Gaya, learned ASC in the matter and perused the record. In addition to the certificate appended to the bail application, Mr. Page 1 of 6 Gyana Ranjan Dhal, learned counsel for petitioner apprises this Court that this is the 3rd bail application of the petitioner, but the petitioner has never approached any higher forum against the order passed by this Court refusing to grant bail to him on earlier two occasions and at present, no bail application of the petitioner is pending before any other forum except this one. Mr. T.K. Praharaj, learned Standing Counsel produces an affidavit sworn in by Inspector-in-charge, CID, CB, Crime Branch, Cyber Crime Police Station, Dist-Cuttack, which is taken on record and the same reveals about involvement of the petitioner in some cases in the State of Telengana. 4. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the present petitioner is similarly situated with co- accused Krishna Kumar Mandal, who has already been granted bail by this Court in BLAPL No.1811 of 2024. Further, it appears from the report submitted by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar that only part examination in chief of P.W.1 was recorded on 03.05.2024 and the rest part of the examination in chief of P.W.1 was deferred to next date i.e. on 04.05.2024, but till today, the examination in chief of P.W.1 is yet to be concluded. It is, however, not in dispute that the present petitioner is in custody since 29.01.2022, but in the meanwhile, more than two year and six months has elapsed, however, the trial Page 2 of 6 is not yet concluded. Right to speedy trial is the fundamental right of a person accused of the offence, but in this case the same has been seriously infringed. It is also not in dispute that the first date fixed for taking evidence was on 09.11.2023, but even after ten months therefrom, the trial has not yet been completed. However, Section 437(6) of the CrPC gives some preference/liberty to the accused to go on bail, if the trial is not concluded with a period of 60 (sixty) days from the first date fixed for prosecution evidence. 5. It is, however, true that personal liberty of an accused is not absolute since the personal liberty as provided in Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides protection of life and personal liberty in the following manner that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law, which thereby carves out an exception to personal liberty of a person which must be in accordance with the procedure established by law, but this article of Constitution quite sincerely provides a right to an accused for speedy trial. In a sense, when the Court continues with custody of an accused in jail, it has an onerous and arduous task to provide speedy trial to the accused and failure to provide speedy trial to accused in a Magistrate triable offence by keeping Page 3 of 6 the accused in custody for indefinite period would not only lead to arbitrary exercise of power, but also tantamount to break down of constitutional machinery which would eventually lead to erode the faith of the general public in the functioning of the Courts. 6. In view of the above facts and discussions made hereinabove and taking into consideration the object and purpose of Section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. which persuades this Court to take a view in favour of the individual liberty of a person while striking a balance between the conflicting interests of the petitioner as provided in Sec. 437(6) of the Cr.P.C and regard being had to the pre trial detention of the petitioner in custody for more than two years and six months without trial being concluded, muchless recording of part examination of only one witness and keeping in view the mandate of law laid down by the Apex Court Satendra Kumar Antil Vrs. C.B.I. and others; (2021) 10 SCC 773 and last but not the least, taking into account the release of co-accused persons Pradhum Kumar Mandal, Sundram Charan and Krishna Kumar Mandal on bail in BLAPL Nos.10760 of 2023, BLAPL No. 2987 of 2022 and BLAPL No.1811 of 2024 respectively, this Court without going into the merits of the case considers it in the interest of justice to extend the relief of bail to the petitioner not only on the principle of parity, but Page 4 of 6 also by extending the benefit of Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C. 7. This Court, however, finds some merit in the submission of the learned ASC that since the petitioner is having some criminal antecedent in the State of Telengana, local surety may be insisted upon for the release of the petitioner on bail. 8. In the result, the bail application of the petitioner stands allowed and the petitioner is allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only with two local solvent sureties each 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, (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 Petitioner fails without sufficient cause to appear in the Court in accordance with the terms of the bail, the learned trial Court may proceed against for offence U/S.229-A of IPC in accordance with law, the Petitioner (iii) the petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission till disposal of the case by intimating his present address of stay, (iv) the petitioner shall report attendance before the Jurisdictional Police Station once Page 5 of 6 in a fortnight preferably on 2nd Sunday of each month in between 10 A.M. to 12 Noon for Six (06) months from the actual date of release from the custody. The I.I.C. of Jurisdictional Police Station 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 similar/grave offence on prima facie accusations may be treated as a ground for cancellation of bail in this case. 9. It is also made clear that the Court in seisin of the case, while releasing the petitioner on bail must verify the residential proof of the sureties by taking the help of local police, if required and such exercise must be completed within a reasonable period of not more than seven days of filing the bail bonds. 10.
Decision
Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. 11. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules. S. Sasmal Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASMITA SASMAL Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 08-Aug-2024 15:03:17 (G. Satapathy) Judge Page 6 of 6