The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.10720 of 2022 Asarful Ansari …. Petitioner Mr. S. R. Das, Advocate State of Orissa -versus- …. Opp. Party Mr. M. Mishra, A.S.C. Mr. A. K. Raut, Advocate (for informant) BLAPL No.10064 of 2022 Md. Arif Ansari & Others …. Petitioners Mrs. S. Jena, Advocate State of Orissa -versus- ….
Legal Reasoning
Opp. Party Mr. M. Mishra, A.S.C. Mr. A. K. Raut, Advocate (for informant) BLAPL No.10379 of 2022 Md. Samim Ansari …. Petitioner Mr. A. R. Panda, Advocate State of Orissa -versus- …. Opp. Party Mr. M. Mishra, A.S.C. Mr. A. K. Raut, Advocate (for informant) BLAPL No.10996 of 2022 Kamaluddin Ansari …. Petitioner Mr. K. Mohanty, Advocate State of Orissa -versus- …. Opp. Party Mr. M. Mishra, A.S.C. Mr. A. K. Raut, Advocate (for informant) // 2 // BLAPL No.11032 of 2022 Kutbul Ansari …. Petitioner Mr. K. Mohanty, Advocate State of Orissa -versus- …. Opp. Party Mr. M. Mishra, A.S.C. Mr. A. K. Raut, Advocate (for informant) CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY Order No.
Decision
ORDER 22.02.2023 BLAPL Nos.10720,10064,10379,10996 &11032 of 2022 06. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Since these five bail applications of the petitioners Asarful Ansari in BLAPL No.10720 of 2022, Md. Arif Ansari and others in BLAPL No.10064 of 2022, Md. Samim Ansari in BLAPL No.10379 of 2022, Kamaluddin Ansari in BLAPL No.10996 of 2022 & Kutbul Ansari in BLAPL No.11032 of 2022 arise out of one and same case, the same are taken up together and disposed of by this common order with consent of the learned counsels for the respective parties. 3. These are applications U/S. 439 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with Cyber P.S. Rourkela P.S. Case No.13 of 2021 corresponding // 3 // to G.R. Case No. 2177 of 2021 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Panposh for commission of offences punishable U/Ss. 120-B/419/420/465/468/471/34 of I.P.C. read with Section 66-D of I.T. Act on the allegation of committing online fraud and cheating of the informant by taking away Rs.15,56,000/- from his savings account maintained at the bank. 4. In the course of hearing the bail applications, Mr.S.R.Das, Mrs.S.Jena, Mr.A.R.Panda, Mr.K.Mohanty learned counsels for the respective petitioners submit that the prima facie allegation for commission of fraud and cheating the informant is wholly directed against the principal accused namely, Jamil Ansari who is not a petitioner in any of these bail applications and the role of present petitioners except one is limited to the extent of transfer of some money around Rs.20,000/- to their accounts from the account of principal accused Jamil Ansari without their knowledge and the manner of implication of present petitioners is solely on the basis of confession of principal accused Jamil Ansari. It is further submitted that all the petitioners except the petitioner in BLAPL No. 10064 of 2022 have been detained in custody since 17.08.2022, but the petitioner in BLAPL No. 10064 of 2022 has been detained in custody since 16.07.2022 and preliminary charge sheet has been already submitted in this case. It is further submitted that without prejudice, all the petitioners have deposited whatever amount they have // 4 // received from the principal accused to the account of informant. On the aforesaid submissions, learned counsels pray to enlarge the petitioners on bail. 5. On contrary, Mr.M.Mishra, learned ASC, however, strongly opposes the bail application of the petitioners by submitting inter alia that all the petitioners might not have any criminal antecedents, but they being the recipient of the money and, thereby, having prima facie cheated the informant by committing online fraud should not be enlarged on bail. 6. Mr.A.K.Rout, learned counsel for the informant does not dispute about refund of money of Rs.25,000/- by the petitioner Md.Samim Ansari and Rs.20,000/- each by the remaining petitioners to the account of informant, but he, however, strongly opposes the bail application of the petitioners by submitting that the petitioners being instrumental in cheating and committing online fraud may not be considered for grant of bail to them and some of the petitioners being individually found involved in separate case and their role in the present case is palpable from materials on record and, thereby, release of the petitioners would encourage them to commit offence again and again. 7. After considering the rival submissions made and taking into consideration the nature and gravity of accusations raised against the petitioners and keeping in view the main allegation being directed against co- accused Jamal Ansari and regard being had to the // 5 // nature and circumstance of the implication of the present petitioners and taking into account the supporting materials collected by the investigating agency against the present petitioners and further taking into consideration the submission of preliminary charge sheet in this case and the principle that bail is the rule, but jail is the exception, this Court admits the petitioners to bail. 8. Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioners stand allowed and the petitioners namely, Asarful Ansari, Md. Arif Ansari, Md. Rajual, Jamshed Ansari, Md. Samim Ansari, Kamaluddin Ansari & Kutbul Ansari are allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) each with two local 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 appear before the Court in seisin of the case on each and every date of posting without fail unless their attendance is dispensed with. (ii) The petitioners shall report attendance before the Jurisdictional Police Station once in a week preferably on Sunday of every month in between 10 A.M. to 12 Noon for six(06) months from the actual date of release from the custody. their (iii) The petitioners Passport, 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 shall deposit // 6 // for specific purpose during the pendency of case. (iv) The petitioners shall not the country without prior permission of the Court in seisin of the case. leave (v) The Petitioners shall inform the Court as well as the Investigating Agency as to their place of residence during trial by providing their mobile number(s), residential address, e-mail, if any, and other documents in support of proof of residence. the The I.I.C. of Jurisdictional Police Station 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 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 for similar offence in future on prima facie accusations may be treated as a ground for cancellation of bail. 9. Accordingly, all the bail applications stand disposed of. 10. Urgent certified copy of the order be granted on proper application. Kishore Judge (G. Satapathy)