The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.8624 of 2024 Ghanashyam Ahuja @ Rocky Kingrani …. Petitioner Mr. A. Patnaik, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. P.K. Ray, AGA CORAM:
Decision
ORDER 24.12.2024 Order No. 04. 1. Heard Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State. 2. Instant petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is filed for release of the petitioner on bail in connection with CT Case No.8 (C) of 2024 corresponding to EOW, Bhubaneswar FIR No.5 of 2024 pending in the file of learned Special Judge-cum-OPID, Balasore arising out of Bhanjapura PS (Mayurbhanj) Case No.95 of 2024 on the grounds stated. 3. Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner allegedly received the amounts while supplying cattle feed and other items, a claim, which supported by Annexure-4 series, however, he has been implicated and stands chargesheeted under Sections 419, 420, 468 and 471 IPC. It is submitted that since the investigation is concluded and the alleged mischief is said to have been committed by the agencies, namely, PT Construction & Supplier and SK Enterprises, the petitioner being the fourth line Page 1 of 5 recipient and not directly involved, he should be allowed to go on bail subject to any terms and conditions. 4. Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State strongly objects to the release of the petitioner on the ground that he is involved in so far as the crime is concerned and received substantial amount and is a party to the illicit transfers and it has taken place, with his assistance, as the proprietor of Ahuja & Associates. It is further submitted that the transactions have been facilitated by the petitioner in connivance with the principal accused, namely, Pomesh Temtre @ Tambhre, the proprietor of PT Construction & Supplier, who said to have managed the amount being fraudulently transferred from the account of the District Mineral Foundation Trust (DMFT), Mayurbhanj. In such view of the matter, Mr. Ray, learned AGA would submit that notwithstanding the preliminary chargesheet being filed in the month of August, 2024, considering the nature of involvement and the fact that the petitioner himself has received good amount of money, which was illegally transferred to PT Construction & Supplier, he should not be enlarged on bail as other accused persons connected to the case are still at large. 5. Pursuant to the Court’s order dated 16th December, 2024, an affidavit is filed by the State and the same is perused. 6. The submission of Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is only a recipient as a supplier of cattle feed and other items, which is clearly made to reveal from Annexure-4 series. It is claimed that due to such supply, the alleged amount was received by the petitioner and it was from one VSGG Management Solutions Pvt. Limited. Denying such claim, Mr. Ray, learned AGA would submit that series of transactions have taken Page 2 of 5 place, whereby, VSGG Management Solutions Pvt. Limited transferred a good amount within a very short period and considering the same, the plea as advanced is out rightly false. It is alleged that the petitioner has identified himself as a Chartered Accountant in bank accounts and the same is still to be verified and in so far as, Ahuja and Associates, of which, he is the proprietor, the same is not functional since long. It is further submitted that considering the frequency of transfers, it is just not possible to accept the fact that the amounts received have been later to any such supply. The sample invoices and bills as at Annexure-4 series as according to Mr. Ray, learned AGA to have been stage managed by the petitioner, which in fact, do not reveal the buyers’ order and other details including the delivery note etc., so therefore, the plea of the petitioner is completely a falsehood. 7. A preliminary chargesheet is filed in the month of August, 2024 keeping the investigation open under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. In fact, the chargesheet is filed against the petitioner as the proprietor of Ahuja & Associates and two others, namely, the proprietors of PT Construction & Supplier and SK Enterprises. As per the investigation, it is claimed that the amount of Rs.2,68,42,300/-, which was received on transfer from the account of DMFT, Mayurbhanj to M/s PT Construction & Supplier, has been assisted by the petitioner, who himself has withdrawn some amount upon receiving Rs.52,87,601/-. Furthermore, transfers have been made to one Jai Maa Kali Enterprises from VSGG Management & Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and the former, thereafter, transferred an amount of Rs.10,82,000/- to Ahuja & Associates. 8. As far as the allegation is concerned, forged cheques were presented before the bank at Baripada and thereafter, the alleged Page 3 of 5 transfers have taken place in favour of PT Construction & Supplier and SK Enterprises. An amount of Rs.4,52,69,700/- was transferred to PT Construction & Supplier from the account of DMFT, Mayurbhanj. Similarly, once again, with the submission of clone cheques, a sum of Rs.5,04,06,900/- was transferred to the account of the said agencies but after intimation to the concerned banks, it was returned. But in so far as, the amount of Rs.2,68,42,300/- is concerned, it was allegedly transferred to PT Construction & Supplier and thereafter, to two others including VSGG Management & Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and at last, to the account of the petitioner. From the chargesheet, it is made to understand that the proprietor of PT Construction & Supplier had withdrawn an amount of Rs.6 lac and the rest was transferred to the accounts of Mishra Enterprises, Mahakal Construction, Roy Associates, SS Traders etc. with the assistance of the petitioners. From the material on record collected so far, it is made to reveal that the petitioner was not merely a recipient but was in a way involved in the alleged transaction with PT Construction & Supplier. The petitioner is claimed to be a Chartered Accountant but as earlier stated, the same is pending verification. That apart, the sample invoices and bills as at Annexure-4 series, as rightly pointed out by Mr. Ray, learned AGA, do not bear the details of the transactions. All such transactions have taken place between the petitioner and VSGG management & Solutions Pvt. Ltd. The series of transactions, genuineness of which, is being questioned by Mr. Ray, learned AGA. Considering the fact that all such transactions have taken place in a quick succession and an amount of Rs.60 lac and some odd was received by the petitioner as the proprietor of Ahuja and Associates, which is claimed to be no more functional and when his credibility is in question for the tacit connection with the proprietor of one of the Page 4 of 5 agencies involved in presenting clone cheques, notwithstanding, the preliminary chargesheet having been filed, the Court is of the view that the stage is not ripe for his release. In other words, the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail at this juncture of further investigation. 9. Hence, it is ordered. 10. In the result, the BLAPL stands rejected. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Rojina Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJINA SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CTC Date: 24-Dec-2024 17:04:13 Page 5 of 5