The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ABLAPL NO.10917 OF 2022 Jagat Jiban Nayak …. Petitioner Mr. Y Das, Sr.Advocate State of Odisha -versus- …. Opposite Parties, Mr. S.Jena, ASC. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE D.DASH ORDER 02.02.2023 Order No. 06. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement (virtual/ physical) mode. 2. The Petitioner having been implicated in connection with Nayapalli P.S. Case No.210 of 2014 corresponding to C.T. Case No.2948 of 2014 pending on the file of learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar for alleged commission of offence under section-420/ 294/323/34 of the IPC, has filed this Application under section-438 of the Cr.P.C. for his release on bail in the event of his arrest in the above mentioned case. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submits that this Petitioner is the Managing Director of Orissa Home Private Limited and that Company was having Real Estate Business and they were going for acquisition of land and sale of plots as well as the construction of houses and their sale. He further submits that in course of business, unfortunately the Company faced several hurdles in different fronts and could not achieve the target as regards delivery of lands and flats to the customers. He submits that for that on the allegation of customers, the EOW, Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No.02 of 2018 being instituted against the Petitioner and others, the Petitioner had been arrested. He further submits that in the said case, the Page 1 of 4 // 2 // Petitioner having remained in custody for about three and half years is now on bail as per the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court pending disposal of SLP (Criminal) No.8918 of 2002 carried against
Legal Reasoning
the order passed by this Court in BLAPL No.3754 of 2002; granting interim bail to the Petitioner. He further submits that the Petitioner since the beginning has been trying his level best and making all sorts of sincere efforts to settle the dispute with the customers and in some such cases, money has also been refunded to the customers. He further submits that the valuation of the assets in the hands of the Company would be more than the total sum alleged to be involved in this case as well as in the other case. He submits that the Petitioner had/has no intention to cheat the customers and the situation has arisen for various unforeseen reasons and even now the Petitioner on being released from custody in connection with that EOW case has been exploring all such possibilities to finally settle all such disputes with the customers and investors. He next submits that although the Petitioner has remained in custody in connection with the EOW case for three and half years, he was never been interrogated by the Investigating Officer of this present case running in the Nayapalli Police Station, Bhubaneswar which was registered much prior to the registration of the EOW case. In the state of affairs, as it stands at the present, he submits that again likely detention of this Petitioner in connection with this case which was prior to the EOW case having almost similar type of allegations and when the Petitioner is enjoying the liberty as per the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court, would serve no useful purpose as the custodial interrogation in this case concerning its facts and circumstances of the cases does not appear now as the requirement. Page 2 of 4 // 3 // In view of all these, when there arises no scope on the part of the Petitioner to flee from justice and as the tampering of evidence is out of question; he urges for grant of bail to the Petitioner in the event of his arrest in connection with the above noted case. 4. Learned Counsel for the State opposes the move. According to him, the allegations against the Petitioner-Company are serious when several persons having invested money for purchase of plots of land have neither been given the land nor have been refunded with their money. He however does not dispute the position that in a later case, the Petitioner being arrested was in custody for more than three and half years and is now enjoying the liberty being granted by the Hon’ble Apex Court till disposal of the SLP. He also submits to have received no report that the Petitioner being on bail has in any way misused the liberty or has violated the terms and conditions imposed for the same. 5. Keeping in view the submissions made, I have gone through the record as placed. It is seen that the Company of which the Petitioner is the Managing Director was carrying on activity of acquisition of landed property and their sale to different persons by plotting and also involved in construction of the houses for sale. The allegations made in the case are to the effects that advance having been received from the some intending purchasers in instalments, they have not been provided with plots of land as promised. It is not borne out from record that the Company has no assets on hand. A case having been initiated, the Petitioner was behind the bar for three and half years and now he is enjoying the liberty being on bail as per the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (Criminal) No.8918 of 2022 till its Page 3 of 4 // 4 // disposal. It is placed that the Petitioner has misused said liberty in any way or that he has violated the terms and conditions imposed for the purpose. The Petitioner being behind the bar for three and half years in connection with another case registered at EOW P.S., Bhubaneswar, at present keeping in view the allegations giving rise to the present case which had been registered at a prior point of time it is seen that Investigating Officer having all the opportunities to interrogate the Petitioner has not taken recourse to the same. For the all these above, this Court is of the considered view that likely arrest and detention of the Petitioner in connection with Nayapalli P.S. Case No.210 of 2014 corresponding to C.T. Case No.2948 of 2014 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar may not serve any such useful purpose. 6. In the wake of aforesaid, it is directed that in the event of arrest of the Petitioner in connection with above mentioned case, the Petitioner shall be released on bail by the Arresting Officer on such terms and conditions as the Arresting Officer may deem just and proper. 7.
Decision
The ABLAPL is accordingly disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules. (D. Dash), Judge. Page 4 of 4 Narayan