The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.8449 of 2024 Ashwini Kumar Patra …. Petitioner Mr. Smruti Ranjan Rout Advocate -versus- Director of Enforcement, Bhubaneswar …. Opp. Party
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Bibekananda Nayak, Advocate, Retainer Counsel (E.D.) CORAM: Order No.
Decision
JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO ORDER 13.12.2024 03. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode). Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for opp. party. This is an application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with ECIR/BBSZO/02/2020, BBSZO/03/2020 & BBZO/04/2020 corresponding to Complaint Case (PMLA) No.08 of 2023 pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge (under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002), Odisha, Khurda at Bhubaneswar for offences punishable under sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Page 1 of 6 The prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I.-I/PMLA, Bhubaneswar vide order dated 07.03.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was taken into judicial custody in connection with another case on 31.12.2020 and he was taken on remand in this case on 17.07.2023 and there are forty eight charge sheet witnesses and sixty seven documents which are to be proved in this case as per charge sheet and as there would be considerable delay in the conclusion of trial, therefore, the bail application of the petitioner may be favourably considered. Learned counsel further submitted that the co- accused, namely, Uma Shankar Patro and Bhubaneswar Mohapatra have been granted bail by the learned trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia -Vrs.- Directorate of Enforcement reported in AIR 2024 SC 4053, wherein it is held as follows: incarceration running “49. We find that, on account of a long period of for around 17 months and the trial even not having been commenced, the Appellant has been deprived of his right to speedy trial. 50. As observed by this Court, the right to Page 2 of 6 speedy trial and the right to liberty are sacrosanct rights. On denial of these rights, the trial court as well as the High Court ought to have given due weightage to this factor. 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 pendency. It is high time that the trial courts and the High Courts should recognize the principle that "bail is rule and jail is exception". 54. In the present case, in the ED matter as well as the CBI matter, 493 witnesses have been named. The case involves thousands of pages of documents and over a lakh pages of digitized documents. It is thus clear that there is not even the remotest possibility of the trial being concluded in the near future. In our view, keeping the Appellant behind the bars for an unlimited period of time in the hope of speedy completion of trial would deprive his fundamental right to liberty Under Article 21 of the Constitution. As observed time and again, the prolonged incarceration Page 3 of 6 before being pronounced guilty of an offence should not be permitted to become punishment without 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.” It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the case of Manish Sisodia (supra), the offence was under section 3 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short, “2002 Act”) and the Hon’ble Supreme Court took into account the provision under section 45 of the 2002 Act and the period of detention and that the trial has not commenced and that the accused has been deprived of right to speedy trial, bail was granted to the petitioner. Page 4 of 6 Mr. Bibekananda Nayak, learned Special Counsel appearing for the opp. party submitted that charge has already been framed against the petitioner on 18.11.2024 and if six months time is granted, the prosecution case would be closed and all relevant witnesses would be produced before the learned trial Court and therefore, the learned trial Court may be directed to expedite the trial. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, the nature and gravity of the accusation and since the petitioner has committed an economic offence and as per charge sheet, due to the activity of the petitioner and other co-accused persons, the Union of India has suffered a total wrongful loss of Rs.18,79,35,713/- (excluding applicable interest) which has been done after the accused persons entered into criminal conspiracy, while not inclining to release the petitioner on bail, but taking into account the period of detention of the petitioner in judicial custody, I direct learned trial Court to expedite the trial and proceed with the trial on day to day basis by taking recourse to section 309 Cr.P.C. (346 of BNSS) and conclude the trial within a period of six months. The petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail, if the trial is not concluded within the said period. Page 5 of 6 Learned counsel for the opp. party made a submission that the witnesses would be produced on day to day basis and no adjournment would be sought for from the side of the prosecution. The petitioner shall cooperate with the trial for early disposal of the case. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of. A copy of the order be communicated to the learned trial Court for compliance. Judge ( S.K. Sahoo) Sipun Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 16-Dec-2024 12:48:09 Page 6 of 6