The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.9199 of 2024 Parikshita Jena …. Petitioner Represented By Mr. Amlan Shakti Paul, Advocate State of Odisha (Vigilance) …. Opposite Party -versus- Represented By Adv. Mr. S.K. Das, SC (Vigilance Deptt.) BLAPL No.8793 of 2024 Sujit Kumar Mohanty …. Petitioner Represented By Mr. Devashis Panda, Advocate State of Odisha (Vigilance) …. Opposite Party -versus-
Legal Reasoning
Represented By Mr.S.K. Das, SC (Vigilance Deptt.) BLAPL No.8943 of 2024 Akhil Kumar Das …. Petitioner Represented By Mr. Amitav Tripathy, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha (Vigilance) …. Opposite Party Represented By Mr.S.K. Das, SC (Vigilance Deptt.) Page 1 of 9 BLAPL No.9290 of 2024 Debadutta Das …. Petitioner Represented By Mr. Susanta Kumar Dalai, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha (Vigilance) …. Opposite Party Represented By Mr.S.K. Das, SC (Vigilance Deptt.) BLAPL No.9617 of 2024 Dibyalochan Dash …. Petitioner Represented By Adv. Mr. Devashis Panda, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha (Vigilance) …. Opposite Party Represented By Adv. Mr. S.K. Das, SC (Vigilance Deptt.) BLAPL No.9877 of 2024 Manoj Kumar Deo …. Petitioner Represented By Mr. Rajendra Narayan Rout, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha (Vigilance) …. Opposite Party Represented By Mr.S.K. Das, SC (Vigilance Deptt.) Page 2 of 9 CORAM: HON’BLE JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA
Decision
O R D E R Date of hearing : 26.11.2024 / date of judgment : 27.11.2024 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual Order No. 05. /Physical Mode). 2. Since all these six bail applications under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. have arisen out of one case vide V.G.R. Case No.09 of 2023 in connection with Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No.30 of 2023 pending in the court of learned Special Judge(Vigilance), Baripada, Mayurbhanj, then, all these six bail applications are taken up together analogously for their final disposal through this common order. 3. Out of the six petitioners, the petitioners in BLAPL Nos.9199, 9290 and 8793 of 2024, i.e., Parikshita Jena, Debadutta Das and Sujit Kumar Mohanty are in jail custody since 14.08.2024. 4. The petitioner in BLAPL No.8943 of 2024, i.e., Akhil Kumar Das is in jail custody since 15.08.2024. 5. The petitioners in BLAPL Nos.9617 and 9877 of 2024, i.e., Dibyalochan Dash and Manoj Kumar Deo are in jail custody since 13.09.2024. Page 3 of 9 6. All the petitioners are in jail custody having been implicated under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 and U/s 409 & 120-B of I.P.C., 1860 on the allegations alleged against them that, the petitioner in BLAPL No.9199 of 2024, i.e., Parikshita Jena was servicing as a Block Development Officer of Suliapada Block in the district of Mayurbhanj since 01.10.2018 to 20.01.2023. During his tenure of service as B.D.O. Suliapada Block, he(petitioner-Parikshita Jena) has misappropriated Government money from several funds of the Block, i.e., Rs.69,74,458/- from OMBADC funds, Rs.42,10,330/- from AGAB(Ama Gaon Ama Bikash) funds and Rs.7,95,000/- from IAP(Integrated Action Plan) funds and accordingly, the total misappropriated Government money from three above funds of the Block is Rs.1,19,79,788/- and he(Ex-B.D.O., Parikshita Jena) has transferred the said misappropriated money to the accounts of his co- accuseds, i.e., to the accounts of the other petitioners along with Nigam Prasad Parida, Proprietor of Bindhani Computer, Baripada and Proprietor Trilochan Traders and as such, the petitioner, i.e., (Parikshita Jena, Ex-B.D.O. of Suliapada Block) along with other petitioners and others named above being connived with each other, they have misappropriated the aforesaid huge amount of Government Page 4 of 9 money, i.e., Rs.1,19,79,788/- for their pecuniary gain causing huge loss to the Government exchequer. 7. As per the available police papers, the petitioner Parikshita Jena is presently serving as a Deputy Collector of Nilgiri S.D.O. office in Balasore district. The petitioner Debadutta Das is presently serving as a Senior Revenue Assistant of Kaptipada Tahasil in the district of Mayurbhanj. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted for liberal consideration of their bail contending that, the petitioners are in jail custody since 14.08.2024, 15.08.2024 and 13.09.2024 respectively for three months and during their staying inside the jail, the investigation of the case has been progressed substantially, (as the learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance submitted that, the investigation of the case is at its last stage) and the entire allegations alleged against the petitioners are based on documentary evidence and the Investigating Officer might have accessed such documents during investigation, to which, learned Standing Counsel for Vigilance vehemently opposed contending that, the criminal misappropriation of Government money committed by the petitioners in a pre-planner manner being connived with each other is Page 5 of 9 of huge magnitude, i.e., to the tune of Rs.1,19,79,788/- and in case of release of the petitioners on bail, there is every possibility of tampering with the documentary evidence by them(petitioners), for which, they(petitioners) should not be allowed to go on bail. 9. As per the case of the prosecution, when the petitioner in BLAPL No.9199 of 2024, i.e., Parikshita Jena (Ex-B.D.O., Suliapada Block, who is presently serving as a Deputy Collector in S.D.O. office at Nilgiri) is the principal culprit of the alleged incident and the petitioner in BLAPL No.9290 of 2024, i.e., Debadutta Das is presently serving as a Senior Revenue Assistant of Kaptipada Tahasil in the district of Mayurbhanj, then, the presence of the so-called principal culprit, i.e., Parikshita Jena (petitioner in BLAPL No.9199 of 2024) and Debadutta Das(petitioner in BLAPL No.9290 of 2024) cannot be unsecured during trial as they are the Government servants. 10. When during the staying of the petitioners inside the jail for three months, almost all parts of the investigation of the case has already been completed and when the entire case of the prosecution is based upon documentary evidence, to which, the Investigating Officer might have accessed and when the petitioners Parikshita Jena and Debadutta Das cannot access to any documentary evidence Page 6 of 9 including the documents of Suliapada Block after their release on bail, as they have already been transferred from Suliapada Block and when the further custodial interrogation of the petitioners may not be required by the Investigating Agency, as in the meantime the petitioners are in jail custody for three months and when, it is not case of the prosecution that, the petitioners have not cooperated the investigation after their arrest and when the main purpose/object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused persons during trial of the case and when the chance of absconding of the petitioners during trial of the case is very less, as their houses are within State, then at this juncture, by taking the above factors into account, I find no justification to disallow the prayer for bail of the petitioners. For which, instead of rejecting the bail applications of the petitioners, it is felt proper to allow them (petitioners) to go on bail with stringent conditions looking to the interest of the prosecution. 11. Therefore, all the six bail applications filed by the petitioners are allowed. 12. They(all the petitioners) are allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/-(rupees fifty thousand) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge(Vigilance), Baripada, Mayurbhanj in V.G.R. Page 7 of 9 Case No.09 of 2023 with conditions that, (i) they(petitioners) shall not involve with similar nature of offences in future. (ii) they(petitioners) shall cooperate with the investigation of the case by remaining present in the place as and when directed by the Investigating Officer. (iii) they(petitioners) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to the informant or to any person acquainted with the facts or any witnesses of the case in any manner or they(petitioners) shall not make any attempt to influence them in any manner so as to dissuading them from disclosing such facts before the Court or any other authority including the Investigating Agency. (iv) they(petitioners) shall remain present personally before the trial court on the dates fixed for hearing of the case and if they wants to remain absent, then, they shall take prior permission of the court for the same to be represented through their respective learned counsels. The liberty is given to the Investigating Authorities/prosecution to make appropriate application or applications for modification / recalling the respective bail orders of the petitioners, if for any reason, any of the Page 8 of 9 petitioners or all the petitioners violate any of the above conditions imposed by this Court for their release on bail. 13. Accordingly, all these six bail applications filed by the petitioners are disposed of finally. 14. Issue certified copy of this order to the petitioners on proper application. Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 27th of November, 2024/ Jagabandhu, P.A. Sd/-A.C. Behera, J. True copy Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: JAGABANDHU BEHERA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK Date: 27-Nov-2024 17:25:14 Page 9 of 9