The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.7839 of 2024 Santosh Kumar Rath … Petitioner Mr. A.S. Paul, Advocate -versus- State of Orissa (OPID) … Opposite Party Mr. J.P. Patra, Advocate (OPID) Order No. 09. CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY ORDER(ORAL) 20.01.2025 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2. This is a bail application U/S.439 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Bhubaneswar EOW P.S. Case No.17 of 2023 corresponding to C.T. Case No.4 of 2023 pending in the file of learned Designated Court under OPID Act, Cuttack, for commission of offences punishable U/s.406/420/476/468/471/120-B of I.P.C. read with Section 6 of OPID Act, on the allegation of cheating gullible investors by taking deposits on the assurance of providing flats. 3.
Legal Reasoning
on prima facie accusations may be treated as a ground for cancellation of bail in this case.
Arguments
In course of hearing, Mr. Amlan Shakti Paul, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this is a second bail application of the petitioner, but no bail application is pending before any other forum. Mr. Paul further submits that present Petitioner is an employee Page 1 of 3 of the company M/s. Mishra Creation Private Limited at Chandaka, which has launched one Housing Project in the name and style UTOPIA Housing Project, he there being has no role in defrauding money from the different customers on the assurance for providing flats and he being the Marketing Manager of the Company had only role in promoting business by arranging customers for the Company. Further Mr. Paul by relying upon the affidavit stated to be sworn in by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Economic Offences Wing filed in BLAPL No.8729 of 2023 submits that the present Petitioner was the Marketing Manager in Mishra Creation Private Limited since 2015, but the said Company had floated a housing scheme called UTOPIA Housing Project and only an amount of Rs.19,10,000/- has been transacted in the account of the Petitioner and his wife, but the petitioner having been detained in custody for more than one and half year without proper progress in trial, may kindly be enlarged on bail. 3.1. On the other hand, Mr. J.P. Patra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of OPID, however, vehemently argues that not only the present Petitioner was the Additional Director of the Company, but also had got sufficient role in cheating different gullible investors who have lost their valuable property in the form of cash and the fraud being to the tune of Rs.13 crore and co-accused having not apprehended Page 2 of 6 after securing interim bail, the present Petitioner’s bail should not be considered liberally. It is further submitted by Mr. Patra that not only the present Petitioner is an Additional Director of M/s. Mishra Creation Private Limited w.e.f. 23.12.2021, but also there is a prima facie case against the Petitioner for cheating gullible investors and not a single flat out of 148 nos. as assured to be provided to the investors having handed over, the present bail application of the Petitioner may kindly be rejected. 4. It is not disputed that the present petitioner has been detained in custody since 20.07.2023, but in the meanwhile, only one out of 44 charge-sheeted witnesses has been examined. In the present scenario, as to when the trial would be concluded is still a guess, but the trial of the case has also lingered for want of execution of NBW against co-accused Jyoti Ranjan Mishra against whom NBW was issued on 31.10.2024. Further, the learned Trial Court in its report has stated that the trial would take prolong time. It is also not in dispute that the Additional Superintendent of Police Economic Offences Wing in his affidavit filed in BLAPL No.8729 of 2023 has stated the following in paragraph-9:- “9.That, an amount of Rs.14,00,000/- has been transferred to the account of Santosh Kumar Rath (Petitioner) and Sugyani Manjari Rath to their joint account vide A/C.No.31853824370 maintained at State Bank of India, IMMT Branch, Page 3 of 6 an amount Likewise, Bhubaneswar. of Rs.5,10,000/- has been transferred from the account of M/s.Mishra Creations Pvt. Ltd. To the account of Santosh Kumar Rath (Petitioner) vide his account number 30345592434. So, till date an amount of Rs.19,10,000/- has been transferred to the account of Petitioner Santosh Kumar Rath and his wife Sugyani Manjari Rath from the account of M/s. Mishra Creations Pvt. Ltd.” 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as when the trial would be concluded is not known and considerable time is likely to be required for disposal of the case and taking into account the period of custody of the petitioner since 20.07.2023 and regard being had to the fact that the principal accused is yet to be apprehended after securing interim bail, this Court notwithstanding to the serious objection as advanced by the learned Counsel for the Opposite Party and without expressing any view on merit considers it in favour of the personal liberty of the Petitioner to grant him bail. 6. Accordingly, the bail application of the petitioner stands allowed and the petitioner is allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh) 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:- Page 4 of 6 (i) the petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail and (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 the Petitioner for offence U/S.229-A of IPC in accordance with law, (iii) the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission till disposal of the case by giving his present address of stay, (iv) the petitioner shall inform the Court as well as the IO as to his place of residence during the trial by providing his mobile number(s), residential address, e-mail, if any, and other documents in support of proof of his residence, (v) in case the petitioner misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence, proclamation U/S.82 of Cr.P.C. is issued and the petitioner fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the learned trial Court is at liberty to initiate proceeding against him for offence U/S.174-A of the IPC in accordance with law and (vi) the petitioner shall appear before the IO as and when required and shall cooperate with the further investigation in the present case. (vii) the petitioner shall surrender his Passport, if any, in the Court in seisin of the case till conclusion of trial, unless he is permitted to take back such Passport to use for specific purpose during the pendency of case. 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 Page 5 of 6 cancellation of bail is otherwise made out. In the wake of aforesaid, the subsequent involvement of the petitioner in future for grave/similar type of offences
Decision
Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per 7. 8. Rules. (G. Satapathy) Judge Narayan Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: NARAYAN HO Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 21-Jan-2025 11:57:47 Page 6 of 6