The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.6445 of 2024 Dhruti Ranjan Mohanty ..... State Of Odisha -versus- ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Bhagabat Prasad Rath Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – P.C.Das, ASC CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No. ORDER 10.07.2024 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2.
Legal Reasoning
Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Party. Perused the materials placed before this Court. 3. The present bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the Petitioner for regular bail in connection with C.T. Case No.17 of 2018, arising out of EOW P.S. Case No.19 of 2018, pending in the Court of learned Designated Court under O.P.I.D. Act, Cuttack for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 420,406,467,468,471,120-B of IPC read with Section 6 of O.P.I.D. Act. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that earlier this matter was not before any other Bench of this Court. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner is in custody since 16.08.2019, however, in the present case the Petitioner has been taken on remand on 31.08.2019. He further contended that in the meantime Page 1 of 5. the investigation has been concluded and final charge sheet has been filed. So far the prosecution story in nut shell is that the informant in the instant case came in contact with the Petitioner in the year 2012 and the Petitioner told that he has a multi storied flat in the name and style of "The Gulmour" and the informant is interested to purchase a flat in the said project and there was a indenture agreement executed by and between the informant and the accused on dated 10.07.2012 and in the said agreement, it is mentioned that the Petitioner sold flat No.TG-3002, 3rd Floor in favour of the informant and receiving the total consideration amount of Rs.25,70,400/- and to that effect the informant availed a housing loan and paid Rs.24,98,200/- to the Petitioner in respect of the said flat. But the informant on reliable source came to know that the Petitioner sold the said flat i.e. TG-3002 to one Bishnupriya Satapathy and thereafter there was a mutual discussion between the Petitioner and the informant that the Petitioner refund the received amount i.e. Rs.24,98,200/- accruding interest thereof and to that effect issued a cheque on dated 09.02.2017 and when the informant presented the said cheque, the same returned as unpaid on the reason of "Funds Insufficient", thereafter finding no other alternative, made a written report before the local Police Station and which subsequently registered as the present F.I.R. U/s. 420 of I.P.C. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that along with many other similarly situated home buyers the present informant also made an agreement with the petitioner and accordingly the informant paid some amount in advance in anticipation of buying flat which has been constructed by the present Petitioner and his company. Since the Petitioner could not supply the flat as furnished by him pursuant to the agreement executed between the informant and the Petitioner, the Petitioner was compelled to take recourse of criminal Page 2 of 5. law. He further contended that another EOW case has been initiated against the Petitioner on the basis of the complaint lodged by the some other home buyers, the same has been registered as EOW P.S. Case No.19, dtd.24.09.2018 for alleged commission of offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC read with Section 6 of OPID Act which corresponds to C.T. Case No.17 of 2018 which is pending before the Designated Court under OPID Act, Cuttack. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.08.2021 passed in BLAPL No.2827 of 2020 has been pleased to release the Petitioner on bail in the above noted EOW case subject to Petitioner furnishing a cash security of Rs.5,00,000/- and property security to the tune of Rs.2,00,00,000/- to the satisfaction court in seisin over the matter. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the flat which is involved in the present case, has also been included in the aforesaid EOW case. 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the dispute involved in the present case is also similar in nature to the aforesaid EOW case. Further it was submitted that the informant-home buyers are trying to harass the Petitioner through a criminal case by filing an F.I.R. against the present petitioner. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioner referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Trisuns Chemical Industry vs Rajesh Agarwal And Others reported in 1999 (8) SCC 686. Referring to the aforesaid judgment, the submitted that in a case of the nature where there is a breach of agreement, there exists a remedy in the shape of arbitrary. He further submitted that in the present case adequate remedy is provided under the law. However, the informant is abusing the process of law by implicating the present petitioner in a criminal Page 3 of 5. case although no such case is made out against the present Petitioner. In the aforesaid factual background, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner, who is in custody since 31.08.2019 be released on bail any terms and conditions that would be imposed by this Court. 8. Learned Additional Standing Counsel on the other hand opposed the bail application of the Petitioner on the ground that the allegations made in the F.I.R. are very grave and serious in nature. Further contended that several home buyers have made allegations against the present Petitioner stating that the Petitioner had although taken money as per the agreement, however, he has failed to deliver the flat within the time stipulation. He further contended that the money of the Home Buyers has been taken away by the petitioner by deceiving the poor and innocent home buyers. He further expressed his apprehension that in the event the Petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood that he might indulge in similar nature of offences. Therefore, on such ground, learned counsel for the State submitted that the bail application of the Petitioner be rejected at this juncture. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on careful consideration of the surrounding facts as well as materials on record, further taking note of the period of custodial detention of the Petitioner, this Court is inclined to release the Petitioner on bail subject to imposition of stringent conditions. 10. Hence, it is directed that the Petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) with two local solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned court in seisin over the matter with further conditions that:- I. he shall not default in attendance of the court during Page 4 of 5. trial on each date of posting; II. shall not harass, threaten, terrorize any of the prosecution witnesses including informant and shall not make any attempt to tamper with prosecution evidence; III. shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial court without prior permission of the trial court; and IV. shall submit his travel documents like passport before the trial court in the event he does not have any passport, he shall also file an affidavit before the trial court. Violation of any other conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail application. 11. It is open for the Court in seisin over the matter to impose any other conditions as may be deemed just and proper. 12. It is further directed that the bail granted to the Petitioner subject to depositing a cash security of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs) before the learned Court in seisin over the matter, which shall be kept in any Nationalized bank in interest bearing account initially for a period of one year which will be renewable from time to time till conclusion of trial and the same shall be abide by the final outcome of the trial of the case. 13. It is further directed that release of the Petitioner shall be subject to furnishing a property security of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs) to the satisfaction of the learned court in seisin over the matter. 14.
Decision
The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of. ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Anil Page 5 of 5. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 11-Jul-2024 11:26:59