✦ Orissa High Court

Pradeep Kumar Pattnaik v. State of Odisha

ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 10655 of 2023V NARASINGH2 min read

Case at a glance

Bench
V NARASINGH

Key paragraphs

  • Para 1313. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules. (V. NARASINGH) Soumya Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN SAMAL Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 18-Oct-2023 17:36:13

Judgment

ORDER 16.10.2023 Order No.

1.

Heard learned senior counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2.

The Petitioner is an accused in connection with C.T. Case No.1279 of 2022(N), pending before the Court of the learned CJM, Bhawanipatna, arising out of Bhawanipatna Town P.S. Case No.484 of 2022, for commission of the alleged offence under Section- 420/409 of IPC.

3.

Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for bail U/s.439 Cr.P.C. by the learned Sessions Judge,I/c, Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna by order dated 11.09.2023 in the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed.

4.

It is submitted by the learned Senior counsel Mr. Mund that the Petitioner is in custody since 21.11.2022 and since final form is filed on 28.02.2023 and as trial has already commenced, further continuance of the Petitioner in custody is not warranted in fact is punitive.

5.

It is stated by the learned senior counsel relying on the charge sheet that there is no material on record that the alleged amount of Rs.81,00,000/-(Rupees Eighty-One Lakhs Only) has been credited to the account of the Petitioner. It is stated referring to the list of documents relates upon by the prosecution the amount about Rs.3,00,000/-. Hence, it is stated that on the face of it, the accusation has no lays to stand.

6.

Per contra learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer and submits that this Court by order dated 26.04.2023 on a detailed analysis of the materials on record had rejected the bail application of the Petitioner and there being no change in circumstances, this application ought not to be entertained.

7.

This Court by order dated 26.04.2023 rejected the bail application of the Petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that there is no trace of the alleged money.

8.

Such money trail is yet to see the light of day, though the trial has already commenced.

9.

Taking into account the nature of the allegation and the Petitioner is the first offender as stated by the learned senior counsel on instruction, this Court directs the Petitioner to be released on bail on such terms to be fixed by the learned Court in seisin including he shall appear on each date of trial.

10.

Taking into account the accusation is defalcation of public money, the petitioner is directed to furnish unencumbered property security to the tune of Rs. 40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty lakhs) to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin.

11.

It is needless to state that this Court has not expressed any opinion regarding the complicity of the Petitioner which has to be adjudicated in the impending trial.

13.

Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules. (V. NARASINGH) Soumya Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN SAMAL Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 18-Oct-2023 17:36:13

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Orissa High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 10655 of 2023). ← Search more judgments