The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.4731 of 2025 Soumendra Swain ..... State Of Odisha -versus- ..... CORAM: Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Judhisthir Sahoo Opposite Party Smt. S. Nayak, ASC THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 02.12.2025 Order No. 02. 1. 2. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Perused the application as well as the prayer made therein. 3. By filing the present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., which corresponds to Section 528 of BNSS, the Petitioner seeks to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash order dated 20.08.2025 passed by the learned J.M.F.C. (LR), Bhubaneswar in C.T. Case No.596 of 2024. By virtue of the impugned order dated 20.08.2025 the learned J.M.F.C. (LR), Bhubaneswar has rejected the prayer of the Petitioner to release the cash security deposited at the time of his release on bail pursuant to the order passed by this Court Page 1 of 5. in BLAPL No.8633 of 2024 dated 21.11.2024. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that initially the Petitioner was implicated as an accused in Tamando P.S. Case No.257 of 2024 for commission of an offence punishable under Sections 420, 294, 506, 34 of IPC. Since the Petitioner was arrested and taken into custody, he moved an application before the learned trial Court and on rejection of such application, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing BLAPL No.8633 of 2024. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 21.11.2024 passed in the above noted bail application, released the Petitioner on regular bail and imposed a condition with regard to furnishing of the cash security. On perusal of the order dated 21.11.2024 at Annexure-1, it is observed that in Para-9 of the said order the learned Coordinate Bench had directed the Petitioner to furnish a cash security to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- only in the shape of STDR obtained from any Nationalized Bank initially for a period of six months to be renewal from time to time till final disposal of the case with an undertaking by the Petitioner that the payment of the matured amount as against the STDR shall be subject to any order passed under the BNSS, 2023. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture, referring to the judgment dated 30.07.2025 passed in C.T. Case No.596 of 2024, which arises out of Tamando P.S. Case No.257 of 2024, stated before this Court that the Petitioner, who faced the trial for the charges as has been indicated in the preceding paragraph, has been acquitted vide judgment dated 30.07.2025 by the learned J.M.F.C. (LR & LTV), Bhubaneswar. On perusal of the judgment at Page 2 of 5. Annexure-3, it appears that by virtue of a detailed judgment the learned trial Court has arrived at a conclusion that the present Petitioner along with other co-accused persons were not found guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 420, 294, 506, 34 of IPC and were acquitted therefrom as per Section 271(1) of the BNSS and were be set at liberty forthwith. Further, the accused persons have been directed to execute a bond of Rs.20,000/- in compliance to Section 481 of BNSS. After conclusion of the trial, which ended in acquittal of the Petitioner vide judgment dated 30.07.2025, the Petitioner moved an application with a prayer to release the cash security which was deposited pursuant to order dated 21.11.2024 of this Court, before the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court vide order dated 20.08.2025 rejected the prayer of the Petitioner on the ground that though the accused persons have been acquitted in this case, the judgment of the Court has not become final as the period prescribed for preparing appeal against it has not elapsed. Being aggrieved by such rejection of his application vide order dated 20.08.2025, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present application. 6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand objected to the prayer made in the present application on the ground that the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality in passing order dated 20.08.2025 and rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner to release the cash security in favour of the Petitioner. In support of such order dated 20.08.2025, learned counsel for the State contended that since the appeal period has not yet expired, the judgment of the learned trial Court has not attained finality. Therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the prayer of the Petitioner. On such ground, Page 3 of 5. learned counsel for the State contended that the present application is devoid of merit and, accordingly, the same should be dismissed. 7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as the materials on record, further taking note of the subsequent development in the shape of the acquittal of the present Petitioner vide judgment dated 30.07.2025 at Annexure-3 and rejection of his prayer to release the cash security in his favour vide order dated 20.08.2025 at Annexure-2, this Court observes that the only question that requires determination in the present application is as to whether the cash security furnished by the Petitioner at the time of his release on bail is to be refunded to the Petitioner or not? To answer the aforesaid question, this Court is required to examine the condition imposed by the Coordinate Bench in BLAPL No.8633 of 2024 vide order dated 21.11.2024. Earlier the Petitioner was released vide order dated 21.11.2024 on regular bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. Such release of the Petitioner on bail was subject to Petitioner furnishing the above noted cash security to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-. Thus, the order releasing the Petitioner remained in forced till the trial was concluded and the Petitioner was acquitted by the learned trial Court. Once the Petitioner was acquitted, he was set at liberty, therefore, the order releasing the Petitioner on bail merges with the final judgment of the learned trial Court. 8. In view of the aforesaid undisputed legal position, the cash security which had been furnished by the Petitioner should have been returned to him by the learned trial Court upon acquittal of the Page 4 of 5. Petitioner vide judgment dated 30.07.2025. The pendency of the appeal or the ground that the appeal period is not yet exhausted is not a ground to not release the cash security which was furnished by the Petitioner at the time of his release on bail as an additional security for his release on bail. The only consideration at this juncture is that the Petitioner is no more on bail as he has been acquitted and set at liberty. 8. In view of the aforesaid analysis of the factual as well as the legal position, this Court is of the view that the order dated 20.08.2025 at Annexure-2 is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the same is hereby set aside. Further, the matter is remanded back to the learned trial Court to reconsider the prayer of the Petitioner as per law and in view of the aforesaid analysis, and to pass necessary orders on the application of the Petitioner within two weeks from the date the Petitioner appears before the learned trial Court along with a copy of today’s order. 9. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the CRLMC application stands disposed of. S.K. Rout ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge Page 5 of 5. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 03-Dec-2025 10:11:06