The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 7918 of 2024 An application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Rudra Pratap Mohanty .…. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha …… Opp. Party ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. S. N. Mishra, Advocate For Opp. Party : Mr. Manoj Bihari Das, Advocate (for informant) Mr. S. S. Mohapatra, Addl. Standing Counsel (for state of Orissa) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: HONOURABLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO JUDGMENT 05.03.2025 Savitri Ratho, J. This is the fourth bail application of the petitioner before this Court under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with Madhupatna P.S. Case No.159 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No.472 of 2023, pending in the Court of the learned J.M.F.C.(UTP), Cuttack. Chargesheet dated 09.05.2024 has been submitted against the petitioner for commission of offences punishable under Sections 419/420/406 / 506 of IPC. BLAPL No. 7918 of 2024 Page 1 of 14 The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo with the deposition of P.W.1 the informant, which indicates that trial has started in the case. EARLIER BAIL APPLICATIONS
Legal Reasoning
2. The first bail application of the petitioner in this Court -
Decision
BLAPL No.12355 of 2023, had been disposed of on 03.11.2023 when investigation was in progress, granting liberty to the petitioner to move for bail before the learned Court below afresh after Page 2 of 15 completion of investigation. 3. The second bail application of the petitioner in this Court – BLAPL No.14577 of 2023 had been dismissed on 29.01.2024, considering the nature of allegation against the petitioner, pendency of investigation and his criminal antecedent involving similar offences. Liberty had been granted to the petitioner to move for bail afresh after completion of investigation. 4. The third bail application of the petitioner in this Court- BLAPL No. 2509 of 2024 had been dismissed on 05.07.2024, considering the materials available against the petitioner, the amount of money involved, his involvement in two similar cases and BLAPL No. 7918 of 2024 Page 2 of 14 as investigation in this case is continuing. Liberty had been granted to the petitioner to move for bail afresh after completion of investigation. 5. Thereafter, his prayer for bail has been rejected on 29.07.2024 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (Vigilance), Cuttack. PROSECUTION ALLEGATIONS 6. The prosecution allegations against the petitioner are that, the informant after seeing an advertisement that one Rudra Builder was undertaking a project in Mouza Raghunathpur under Nandankanan P.S., contacted the petitioner as his family wanted to purchase a plot. He was shown the land where construction would be made. He paid the petitioner a total sum of Rs.56,49,000/- through Google pay, Phone Pay and RTGS and cash. The petitioner took the money with dishonest intention as he had not taken any steps to arrange a plot or house for the petitioner at any time. When the informant went to the spot which had been shown to him and found that there was no project, he contacted the petitioner who assured that work will start soon. Thereafter, when the informant realized that the petitioner was not going to start any construction and had cheated him, he asked for return of his money, but was threatened by the petitioner. So he BLAPL No. 7918 of 2024 Page 3 of 14 lodged FIR against him on 04.05.2023. The petitioner could be arrested on 07.10.2023. During investigation, it was found that the petitioner was a computer hardware mechanic. He posed to be a builder to acquire money and had showed a vacant piece of land to the informant which did not belong to him saying that construction would be made there. So the family of the informant sold their paternal property and out of the proceeds, made payment to the petitioner. The petitioner has been paid Rs.18, 99,000/- through Google pay and phone Pe and Rs.25.00 lakhs through RTGS. After receiving the amount of Rs.25 lakhs from the informant he has purchased a Hyundai Creta car for Rs.15 lakhs from Utkal Hyundai. He has also utilized part of the money for development of his own apartment at Swosti Garden another part to buy gold ornaments and he had pledged some of the gold to avail gold loan and that he has seven bank accounts in different banks. When the informant asked him about the delay in construction, the petitioner told him it was on account of the COVID pandemic. Thereafter he gave evasive replies and threatened the informant when he asked for return of his money. BLAPL No. 7918 of 2024 Page 4 of 14 SUBMISSIONS 7. I have heard Mr. S. N. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Manoj Bihari Das, learned counsel for the informant and Mr. S. S. Mohapatra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. 8. Mr. S. N. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are false. The petitioner runs an old age home and for running of that old age home some money has been transferred to him by the informant. But for reasons best known to him subsequently he has made false allegations against the petitioner. He has submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 08.10.2023 and investigation has been completed, but there is no likelihood that the trial will be completed in the near future. As the offences alleged against the petitioner are triable by a magistrate and the petitioner has remained in custody for almost one and half years, he may be granted bail. The petitioner undertakes to cooperate for early completion of the trial. In support of his submissions, he has relied on the following decisions : - (i) Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd. and Others 2006 SCC OnLine SC 747 : (2006) 6 SCC 736 BLAPL No. 7918 of 2024 Page 5 of 14 (ii) Manish Sisodia vs. Enforcement Diretorate : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920, (iii) Mitesh Kumar J. Sha vs. State of Karnataka (2022) 14 SCC 572: 2021 SCC Online SC 976, (iv)Samsul Alam Khan vs. Union of India, (SLP CRL 12626 of 2022 decided on 03.05.2023 ) (v)Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation : 2011 SCC OnLine SC 1502, (vi)Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 922, (vii)Vijay Kumar Ghai & Others vs. State of West Bengal & Others : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 344 : (2022) 7 SCC 124; and (viii) BLAPL No. 565 of 2024 in the case of Surjit Kumar Dhal vs. State of Odisha (EOW) judgment dated 18.04.2024. 9. Mr. S. S. Mohapatra, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State, opposed the prayer for bail stating that the petitioner has taken an amount more than Rs. 58.00 lakhs from the informant over period of time on the assurance of arranging a house for his family in Bhubaneswar and giving him fake excuses and assurances. He has received Rs.18,99,000/- through Google pay and phone Pe and Rs.25.00 lakhs, has been transferred to his account BLAPL No. 7918 of 2024 Page 6 of 14 through RTGS (about Rs.45,000/- through Bank transaction). He has further submitted that investigation reveals that after receiving of Rs.25.00 lakhs, the petitioner bought a Hundai Creta car (the payment has been made to Utkal Hyundai on 17.06.2021 to the tune of Rs.15.00 lakhs). He has also purchased gold using the same money. By mortgaging this gold he has taken loan. He has no permanent source of income and is in the habit of cheating people. He has a similar criminal antecedent - Balianta P.S. Case No.173 of 2016 under Sections 419/420 of the IPC. As he had avoided arrest during investigation, there is a possibility that, he may abscond if he is granted bail. 10. Mr. Manoj Bihari Das, learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for bail submitting that the petitioner has cheated the informant and his family of Rs. 58 lakhs which included the money they had got by selling their ancestral land for purchasing a house in Bhubaneswar. Instead of providing them land or house in Bhubaneswar, the petitioner has used this money for leading a luxurious life and buying a car, jewellery and developing his own apartment, for which he does not deserve to be released on bail. BLAPL No. 7918 of 2024 Page 7 of 14 JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS 11. It is not necessary to refer to all the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner for deciding this bail application as though these decisions relate to offences under Section 420 IPC but some of the cases relate to quashing and others to convictions. A few decisions which are relevant are referred to below:- In the case of Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI : (2012) 1 SCC 40, while allowing the prayer for bail of the accused, the Supreme Court has held as follows: “ 21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment ,unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. 22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some un-convicted persons should be held in BLAPL No. 7918 of 2024 Page 8 of 14 custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, `necessity' is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of a refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any Court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an un-convicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson.” xxxxxxx “40. The grant or refusal to grant bail lies within the discretion of the Court. The grant or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. But at the same time, right to bail is not to be denied merely because of the sentiments of the community against the accused. The primary purposes of bail in a criminal case are to relieve the accused of imprisonment, to relieve the State of the burden of keeping him, pending the trial, and at the same time, to keep the accused BLAPL No. 7918 of 2024 Page 9 of 14 constructively in the custody of the Court, whether before or after conviction, to assure that he will submit to the jurisdiction of the Court and be in attendance thereon whenever his presence is required.” 41. This Court in Gurcharan Singh and Ors. Vs. State (Delhi Administrations): AIR 1978 SC 179 observed that two paramount considerations, while considering petition for grant of bail in non-bailable offence, apart from the seriousness of the offence, are the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and his tampering with the prosecution witnesses.” In the case of Manish Sisodia (supra), referring to the decision of Gudikanti Narasimhulu (supra) the Supreme Court has observed as follows : “53. The Court further observed that, over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well- settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. From our experience, we can say that it appears that the trial courts and the High Courts attempt to play safe in matters of grant of bail. The principle that bail is a rule and refusal is an exception is, at times, followed in breach. On account of non-grant of bail even in straight forward open and shut cases, this Court is flooded with huge number of bail petitions thereby adding to the huge 36 pendency. It is high BLAPL No. 7918 of 2024 Page 10 of 14 time that the trial courts and the High Courts should recognize the principle that “bail is rule and jail is exception”. “55. As observed by this Court in the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu (supra), the objective to keep a person in judicial custody pending trial or disposal of an appeal is to secure the attendance of the prisoner at trial. 56. In the present case, the appellant is having deep roots in the society. There is no possibility of him fleeing away from the country and not being available for facing the trial. In any case, conditions can be imposed to address the concern of the State. 57. Insofar as the apprehension given by the learned ASG regarding the possibility of tampering the evidence is concerned, it is to be noted that the case largely depends on documentary evidence which is already seized by the prosecution. As such, there is no possibility of tampering with the evidence. Insofar as the concern with regard to influencing the witnesses is concerned, the said concern can be addressed by imposing stringent conditions upon the appellant…..” In the case of Samsul Alam Khan ( supra ) the accused had been released on bail after remaining in custody for some months in connection with another FIR. The Supreme Court had granted interim protection from arrest. The prosecution submitted that chargesheet had been filed in the case and their custody was not required and the accused Samsul Alam Khan and Sahajahan Khan had deposited BLAPL No. 7918 of 2024 Page 11 of 14 Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees nine lakhs ). The Supreme Court granted them anticipatory bail but subject to stringent conditions. In the case of Surjit Kumar Dhal (supra), in a case under under Sections 420/467/468/471/506 of the I.P.C, it was alleged that the informant had paid a sum of Rs.30 lakhs in cash to the Petitioner and Rs.10 lakhs through account transfer. This Court allowed the prayer for bail of the accused. One of the bail conditions was to furnish cash security of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs). ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION 12. In the present case, it appears that trial has already started and the informant has been examined. The petitioner is in custody since 08.10.2023. Considering the nature of allegations against the petitioner, the punishment prescribed for the offences for which he is facing trial and the period spent by him in custody, I am of the view that no useful purpose will be served by detaining the petitioner any further in custody. In view of the amount of money received by the petitioner (Rs.18, 99,000/- through Google pay and phone Pe and Rs.25.00 lakhs through RTGS.) and the decisions in the cases of Samsul (supra) and Surjit Dhal (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner and as the petitioner could be arrested only BLAPL No. 7918 of 2024 Page 12 of 14 after five months of lodging of the FIR, while allowing the prayer for bail, I have thought it fit to impose suitable conditions. 13. It is accordingly directed that the petitioner Rudra Pratap Mohanty, shall be released on bail on such terms and conditions as the learned court in seisin over the matter in C.T. case No 1630 of 2023 may consider fit and proper, after verifying that he has only one criminal antecedent as mentioned above, in which he has been granted bail, as well as the following conditions: (i) He will furnish cash security of Rs 5,00,000/- ( Rupees five lakhs only) which will be kept in fixed deposit in a nationalised bank (and renewed if required ) and which will abide by the decision in the trial (ii) He will not indulge in any criminal activity. (iii) He will not leave Khurda District and Cuttack District, without permission of the learned trial Court. (iv) He will remain personally present in the learned trial court on each date fixed for trial and co-operate for early disposal of the trial. (v) He will appear before the Madhupatna Police Station on every alternate Sunday between 11.00 am to 12.00 p.m., unless permitted by the learned trial court, to leave the State. BLAPL No. 7918 of 2024 Page 13 of 14 14. In the event of violation of any of these conditions or any other condition that may be imposed by the learned Court in seisin over the matter, this order is liable to be recalled and / or the bail granted to the petitioner cancelled. 15. Observations in this order have been made for purpose of considering the bail application and are prima facie views and should not influence the learned trial court, which is to try the case strictly on the basis of evidence led in the case. 16. The BLAPL is accordingly allowed. 17. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. 18. Copy of this order be supplied to Mr Gyanalok Mohanty learned Standing Counsel for onward transmission to the IIC of Madhupatna Police Station. 19. Urgent certified copy of the order be granted on proper application. Orissa High Court, Cuttack. The 5th of March 2025 Subhalaxmi, Jr. Steno ……………………… (Savitri Ratho, J.) Signature Not Verified BLAPL No. 7918 of 2024 Page 14 of 14 Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHALAXMI PRIYADARSHANI SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 10-Mar-2025 19:43:59