The High Court
Case Details
s IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.9120 of 2025 Pravat Kumar Jena ..…... Petitioner Mr. Pratik Nayak, Adv. -Versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Parties Mr. Rajdeep Pradhan, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
Decision
ORDER 22.09.2025 Dated F.I.R No. Police Station Case No. Courts’ Name and Sections 260 21.05.2025 Chandrasek harpur U/S. 318(4) B.N.S. 2023 C.T Case No.727 of 2025 pending in the Court of learned JMFC-II, Bhubaneswar Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. The Petitioner being in custody in connection with Chandrasekharpur P.S. Case No.260 of 2025, corresponding to C.T Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 23-Sep-2025 18:11:23 Page 1 of 6 Case No.727 of 2025 pending in the Court of learned JMFC-II, Bhubaneswar, registered for the alleged commission of offence under Section 318 (4) of the B.N.S. 2023, has filed this petition for his release on bail. 3. The allegation leveled against the Petitioner in brief is that on 21.05.2025 the informant lodged an FIR alleging that the petitioner/Managing Director of M/s The Engineering, induced him in 2023 to entrust the construction of his house. Hence, an agreement was executed on 06.12.2023. The informant and his wife together paid a total sum of Rs.53,00,000/- in different instalments. But, the Petitioner issued receipts only for part payment of the amount. Though construction began, it was abandoned in October 2024. However, despite repeated assurances over WhatsApp, the petitioner failed to resume the work. Later, the informant learnt that the Petitioner had similarly cheated others and was facing multiple criminal cases. A final notice was issued on 07.04.2025 demanding settlement of the issue which leads to the allegation of cheating and criminal breach of trust. Hence, this case, 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has been languishing in custody since 03.08.2025. He also submits that the Petitioner and the Informant entered into an agreement on Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 23-Sep-2025 18:11:23 Page 2 of 6 06.12.2023 for construction of the house. In the FIR, it is clearly stated that the work was commenced and receipts were issued, which reflects a bona fide transactions. The Informant appears to have given a civil dispute into a criminal colour only to exert pressure on the Petitioner for recovery of the money. He further contends that the entire transaction arises out of a contractual agreement for construction. In view of all these above, when the Petitioner is a permanent resident of District Khurdha as also the question of tampering with the evidence does not arise, he urges for consideration of prayer for grant of bail to the Petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the bail prayer of the Petitioner stating that the Petitioner has not completed the work. He was refused to execute the remaining work. He further submits that if the Petitioner is released on bail, he may flew away from the jurisdiction of this Court or may tamper the prosecution evidence. Hence, his prayer may be rejected. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances and keeping in view the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner, this Court refers to the judgment in the case of Paramjeet Batra –verus- State of Uttarakhand1, wherein the Supreme Court laid down that the 1 (2013)11 SCC 673 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 23-Sep-2025 18:11:23 Page 3 of 6 foundational principle that complaints disclosing civil transactions but given a criminal cloak should be quashed when civil remedies are available and being pursued. The similar sentiments have also been echoed by the Supreme Court in the case of S.N. Vijayalaxmi- versus-State of Karnataka 2wherein it was stated that in absence of any element of criminality or dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction, a party cannot be permitted pursue both civil and criminal remedies simultaneously, for such a parallel proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of law. 7. So, without going into the merit of the case and taking into account the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to above, this Court is of the view that there is no requirement of keeping the Petitioner inside the custody any further. Accordingly, this Court directs that the Petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case by the Court in seisin over the matter on some stringent terms and conditions with further conditions that: i. the petitioner shall appear before the local Police Station on first Monday of every month between 10 A.M. to 1.00 P.M; ii. he shall cooperate the investigation and appear before the trial court on every date without fail; 2 SLP(Criminal) No.8626 of 2024 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 23-Sep-2025 18:11:23 Page 4 of 6 iii. iv. v. vi. the Petitioner shall not indulge himself in any criminal activities in future; the Petitioner shall not tamper the evidence of the prosecution evidence in any manner; the Petitioner shall file an affidavit before the local police station that he would never engage in any criminal activities in future. The petitioner shall plant 100 saplings of local varieties, such as mango, neem, tamarind, etc., around his village on government land, community land, or private land in the possession of the petitioner or his family members. In the event that suitable land is unavailable, the Revenue Authority shall assist in identifying land for the plantation. Violation of any of the above conditions shall lead to the cancellation of the bail. 8. The I.I.C. of the concerned police station, in coordination with the local Forest Officer, shall monitor whether the Petitioner has planted the saplings as required. 9. It is further directed that the petitioner shall file an affidavit before the local police station, confirming that the saplings have been planted and that the petitioner will maintain them for a period of two years. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 23-Sep-2025 18:11:23 Page 5 of 6 10. The District Nursery/District Forest Officer (D.F.O.) shall extend assistance to the petitioner by supplying the necessary saplings. 11. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of. Judge (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Gitanjali Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 23-Sep-2025 18:11:23 Page 6 of 6