The High Court
Case Details
Order No. 06. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK Sudhir Patel (in BLAPL No.10149 of 2024) Ved Prakash Kashyap @ Ved Prakash (in BLAPL No.10393 of 2024) … Petitioners Mr. D. Panda, Advocate (in BLAPL No.10149 of 2024) Mr. S.K. Lenka, Advocate (in BLAPL No.10393 of 2024) -versus- State of Odisha … Opposite Party Mr. A.K. Nayak, Advocate (OPID) CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY ORDER(ORAL) 05.04.2025 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2. Since these two bail applications arise out of one and same case record, the same are heard together and disposed of by this common order with
Facts
the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. These are the bail applications U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with EOW Bhubaneswar Case No.28 of 2023 corresponding to C.T. Case No. 128 of 2023 pending in the file of learned Presiding Officer, Designated Court under OPID Act, Cuttack, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss. 420/467/ 471/ 120-B of the IPC r/w. Section 66(D) of the IT Act & Section Page 1 of 1 4/5/6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act & Section 6 of the OPID Act, on the main allegation of alluring the gullible depositors to invest money in different schemes floated by them including the Crypto currency business on the assurance of getting high return and in the process cheating the informant for a sum of Rs. 48,02,200/-. 4.
Legal Reasoning
After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, it appears that the informant has lodged the FIR for duping him for a sum of Rs.48Lakhs which was stated to be invested in Crypto Page 3 of 7 currency business by the petitioners. However, the analysis of bank statement of accounts of the petitioners, only few amounts have been credited/transacted in the bank accounts of the petitioners. Besides, investigation has already been completed, but the petitioners are in custody for near about one year, however, the trial is yet to commence. Moreover, the reason that might delay the trial is for keeping the investigation open for not being able to bring other accused persons in the purview of charge sheet. Further, the petitioners are in custody for last one year, but the investigation agency does not stress/insist for their custodial interrogation. In the circumstance, the conclusion of trial in this case is likely to take some more time. 6. In view of the above facts and taking into consideration the materials placed on record and regard being had to the pre-trial detention of the petitioners in custody and the trial being unlikely to ensue shortly and in any way, it is not likely to be concluded in near future, this Court without expressing any view on merits, admits each of the petitioners to bail. 7. Hence, these two bail applications of the petitioners namely Sudhir Patel in BLAPL No.10149 of 2024 and Ved Prakash Kashyap @ Ved Prakash in BLAPL No. 10393 of 2024 stand allowed and each of the petitioners are allowed to go on bail on furnishing Page 4 of 7 an unencumbered property surety of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs), in addition to bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin of the case, on such terms and conditions as deem fit and proper by it with following conditions:- (i) the petitioners shall not commit any offence while on bail, fail unless ii) the petitioners in the course of trial shall attend the trial Court on each date of posting without their attendance is dispensed with. In case the fail without sufficient Petitioners cause to appear in accordance with the terms of the bail, the learned trial Court may proceed against the Petitioners for offence U/S.269 of BNS,2023 in accordance with law and, in the Court the IO once (iii) the petitioners shall report attendance before fortnight preferably on 2nd Sunday of each month in between 10 A.M. to 12 Noon for six (06) months from the actual date of release from the custody. in a (iv) the petitioners shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission till disposal of the case by intimating their present address of stay to the concerned Court, (iv) the Petitioners shall inform the Court as well as the Investigating Agency as to their place of residence during the trial by Page 5 of 7 providing number(s), their mobile residential address, e-mail, if any, and other documents in support of proof of their residence. The Petitioners shall not change their address of residence without intimating to the Court and Investigating Agency, (v) In case the Petitioners misuse the liberty of bail and in order to secure their presence, proclamation U/S.84 of BNSS, 2023 is issued and the Petitioners fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the learned trial Court initiate is at for offence proceeding against U/S.209 of BNS, 2023 in accordance with law, liberty them to (vi) the Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Agency as and when required and shall cooperate with the further investigation in the present case, (vii) the Petitioners shall surrender their passports, if any, in the Court in seisin of the case till conclusion of trial, unless they are permitted to take back such passport to use for specific purpose during the pendency of the case and in case, the petitioners are not having any passport, they will file an affidavit before the trial Court indicating the same. The IO shall not detain the petitioners unnecessarily after recording their attendance beyond the time as stipulated. It is clarified that the Court in seisin of the case will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the petitioners without further reference to this Court, if Page 6 of 7 any of the above conditions are violated or a case for cancellation of bail is otherwise made out. In the wake of aforesaid, the subsequent involvement of the petitioners in future for any grave/similar offence on prima facie accusations may be treated as a ground for cancellation of bail in this case. 8. 9.
Arguments
In the course of hearing, Mr. Devashis Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No. 10149 of 2024 submits that the petitioner-Sudhir Patel is in custody since 15.04.2024 and the allegation against him for cheating the informant for Rs.48Lakhs, but fact stated in paragraph-19.10 of the preliminary charge sheet submitted in this case is that an amount of Rs.14,61,730/- has been transferred to different accounts in different banks in the name of the petitioner and a sum of Rs.3,61,339/- has been transferred to the account of co-accused Ved Prakash Kashyap @ Ved Prakash (petitioner in BLAPL No. 10393 of 2024) and thereby, the aforesaid fact is indicative of some transaction to different account holders for the purpose of some business, however, taking into consideration the allegation against the petitioners, it appears that they are involved in Crypto currency business which is not illegal as held by the Apex Court in Internet and Mobile Association of India vs. Reserve Bank of India;(2020) 10 SCC 274. Mr.Panda, further Page 2 of 7 submits that the petitioner having detained in custody substantially and the trial having not likely to commence in near future, the petitioner may kindly be granted bail. 4.1. In echoing the aforesaid submission of Mr. Panda, Mr. Sapan Kumar Lenka, learned counsel, who enters appearance for the petitioner in BLAPL No. 10393 of 2024 in Court today by filing appearance memo which is taken on record prays to grant bail to the petitioner-Ved Prakash Kashyap @ Ved Prakash by relying upon the decision in Ganesh Shivkumar Sagar vs. The State of Gujurat; 2023 SCC Online SC 903. 4.2. On the other hand, Mr. Anil Kumar Nayak, learned counsel for the OPID, however, strongly opposes the bail applications of the petitioners by inter alia contending that not only the petitioners are instrumental in alluring the informant to invest money in fraud scheme, but also they are instrumental in cheating other depositors for a sum of Rs.14Crores in different schemes and, thereby, the petitioners deserve no leniency. Mr. Nayak accordingly prays to reject the bail applications of the petitioners. 5.
Decision
Accordingly, these BLAPLs stand disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules. (G. Satapathy) Judge S.Sasmal Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASMITA SASMAL Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 07-Apr-2025 11:46:25 Page 7 of 7