JUSTICE v. NARASINGH Order No
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ABLAPL No. 13011 of 2025 1. Bibhu Prasad Tripathy 2. Arupa Nanda Das …. Petitioners Ms. Deepali Mohapatra, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. C.R. Swain, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Order No. 01. 1. ORDER 11.11.2025 Consent memo filed by the learned counsel Ms. Deepali Mohapatra for the Petitioners is taken on record. 2. Name of learned counsel Ms. Mohapatra be reflected in the file, cause list as well as in the web portal of this Court. 3. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and
Legal Reasoning
learned counsel for the State. 4. During the course of hearing, copy of the FIR in question i.e. Lalbag (UPD, Cuttack) P.S. Case No.438 of 2025 dated 06.11.2025 wherein the Petitioners are cited as accused, submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioners is taken on record. Copies of the Proceedings of the Executive Committee Page 1 of 10 Meeting of the Bar Council of Odisha dated 10.04.2025, Proceedings of the 11th Council Meeting of the OSBC dated 12.04.2025, Notice to the President/Secretary of All Affiliated Bar Associations, Odisha dated 25.08.2025, Notice dated 29.08.2025 for News Publication, Advertisement of Office of Advocate General, Odisha dated 08.08.2024, Notice dated 04.12.2024, Show Cause Notice dated 25.09.2025 and Withdrawal Notice dated 03.11.2025 submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioners is also taken on record. Copy thereof has been served on the learned counsel for the State. 5. The Petitioners are seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with G.R. Case No.993 of 2025 pending on the file of learned S.D.J.M.(S), Cuttack arising out of Lalbag (UPD, Cuttack) P.S. Case No.438 of 2025 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 336(2)/338/336(4)/336(3)/340(2)/318(4)/3(5) of BNS. 6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioners that the genesis of the present allegations has its moorings in the resolution dated 10.04.2025 of the Odisha State Bar Council, by which a decision was taken to deal with enrolled advocates Page 2 of 10 with the Bar Council of Odisha being engaged in gainful employment. And, to cleanse the system a decision was taken to issue notice to them by giving them an opportunity to surrender their licenses, failing which they would make themselves liable for criminal action in accordance with law. The relevant extract of the said resolution dated 10.04.2025 germane for adjudication is culled out hereunder for convenience of reference; “xxx xxx xxx In this respect The Executive Committee unanimously resolved that a Press Conference may meet by the Council and wide circulation may be made so as to ensure that person those who are in the roll of Odisha State Bar Council and engaged in activities and carrying on other profession or engaged in otherwise office of profit shall have to surrender the license within a period of one month or such notices by the Council. xxx xxx xxx” 6.A. It is apt to note that the Bar Council of Odisha in its proceedings of the 11th Council Meeting held on 12.04.2025 under the Additional Agenda No.1 affirmed the proceeding of Executive Committee Meeting dated 10.04.2025 adverted to hereinabove. Such Additional Agenda No.1 is extracted hereunder; Page 3 of 10 “Addl. Agenda No.-1: To confirm the Proceeding of Executive Committee Meeting dtd.10.04.2025 along with the Budget Estimate for the year 2025-2026 prepared by Finance its meeting in Committee dtd.09.04.2025. Approved.” 6.B. In terms of the resolution passed, a communication was sent to the President/ Secretary of All Affiliated Bar Association, Odisha by the Odisha State Bar Council under letter dated 25.08.2025. 7. When it came to the notice that in terms of the advertisement No.1576WE of 2024 dated 08.08.2024 some Research Associates have been engaged by the Office of the Advocate General and such engagement is in purported violation of the resolution, a show cause dated 25.09.2025 was issued to one of the Research Associates-the informant. Later on, when the Secretary of the Bar Council of Odisha realized that issuance of such show cause is in patent violation of the direction of the Apex Court, such show cause was recalled by communication dated 03.11.2025. Page 4 of 10 Keeping in view the allegations against the Petitioners, the recitals of the said communication is extracted hereunder; “xxx xxx xxx To, 1. xxx xxx xxx, Advocate, xxx xxx xxx 2. xxx xxx xxx, Advocate, xxx xxx xxx 3. xxx xxx xxx, Advocate, xxx xxx xxx 4. xxx xxx xxx, Advocate, xxx xxx xxx 5. xxx xxx xxx, Advocate, xxx xxx xxx 6. xxx xxx xxx, Advocate, xxx xxx xxx (Names and addresses redacted) Ref: OSBC/GEN/6092, 6093, 6094, 6095, 6096, 6097 dtd.25.09.2025. Sir/Madam. it letter referred above As directed inviting your attention to the is herewith informed that the said letter was not supposed to be sent by Odisha State Bar Council in view of the exemption granted by Hon’ble Supreme judgment dtd.20.05.2025; Court of India further it is also herewith mentioned that the Page 5 of 10 said letter was a computer generated letter which was sent without the knowledge of Secretary though the letter appears to carry the signature of the Secretary. The said letter was sent through whatsapp by way of scanning the signature of the Secretary. However inspite of this I as the Secretary of Odisha State Bar Council do own responsibility for the said mistake and wrong committed. I as the Secretary, Odisha State Bar Council do hereby express my sincere sense of regret. Once more I implore your good self to ignore the said letter. Further for your kind information, the said letter herewith stands withdrawn and recalled in view of the exemption granted to you as vouchsafed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India Judgment dtd.20.05.2025. Sd/- (J. K. Samantasinghar) Secretary” The name of the informant in such communication appears at serial No.1. 8. When the matter stood thus, complaint was FIR filed by the Informant alleging that the Petitioners, who are the members of the Bar Council of Odisha, have connived with another employee of Page 6 of 10 the Bar Council of Odisha (co-accused) in issuance of the letter seeking show cause. And, it was also alleged referring to the letter of withdrawal issued by the Secretary that since admittedly the Secretary has not signed, the matter needs to be investigated. Accordingly, the FIR in question came to be instituted. 9. It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners that even if the entire allegations are accepted at its face value no complicity of the Petitioners comes to the fore and the entire allegations are based on surmises and on extraneous consideration. Hence, the Petitioners may be protected by pre-arrest bail. 10. It is the further submission that once having realized that the show cause notice to the Informant and others ought not to have been issued, the same was withdrawn and in the letter of withdrawal, there is no mention about the complicity of the Petitioners in issuing the show cause. 11. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that even if the entire allegations are accepted at its face value no offence inter alia under Page 7 of 10 Section 338 BNS1, for which the punishment prescribed is more than 10 years, is made out. 12. Per contra the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, Mr. Swain submits that it is clearly borne out from the statement of the Secretary of the Bar Council of Odisha as well as Informant that the entire exercise was done at the behest of the Petitioners and since both the Petitioners are member of the Bar Council of Odisha, taking into account the nature of allegations protecting them by pre-arrest bail would derail the ongoing investigation and unless they are interrogated without being ensconced by a pre-arrest order, such investigation would be an empty formality. In this Context learned counsel for the State relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State represented by the C.B.I. vrs. Anil Sharma2. 12.A. It is the further submission that since the co- accused is in custody, no leniency ought to be shown 1 338. Forgery of Valuable security, will, etc.- Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquaintance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquaintance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 2 State represented by the C.B.I. vrs. Anil Sharma , (1997) 7 SCC 187 Page 8 of 10 to the Petitioners. And, they are not entitled to the “exceptional remedy” of pre-arrest bail. 13. Recently the Apex Court adopting the modality of the continuing mandamus by order dated 21.03.2023 in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another3, has reiterated the guidelines for considering a anticipatory bail application. The Apex Court has restated that the anticipatory bail is a species of bail and has observed thus; “…………..We would like to clarify that what we have enunciated qua bail would equally apply to anticipatory bail cases. Anticipatory bail after all is one of the species of a bail. xxx xxx xxx” Hence, the rival submissions made at the Bar have to be considered on the touchstone of the law as laid down above. 14. Since the matter is under investigation, this Court refrains from making any comments regarding the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioners relating to the ingredients of the offence alleged under Section 338 BNS1, since it will prejudice the ongoing investigation. 3 Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 452 Page 9 of 10 15. On a perspicuous analysis of the materials on record, the statements and the role ascribed to the Petitioners in their capacity as members of the Bar Council of Odisha, this Court is persuaded to hold that custodial interrogation of the Petitioners is not warranted. Hence, this Court directs that in the event of arrest of the Petitioners in connection with the aforesaid case, they shall be released on bail by the Arresting Officer on such terms and conditions deemed just and proper. 16. It is needless to state that they shall cooperate with the ongoing investigation. 17. It is apt to clarify that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of considering the present pre-arrest bail application and ought not to be construed as this Court expressing any opinion regarding the complicity of the Petitioners which has to be decided in an independent manner in the ongoing investigation. 18. Accordingly, the ABLAPL stands disposed of. U.C.C. as per rules. (V. NARASINGH) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Santoshi Signed by: SANTOSHI LENKA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 11-Nov-2025 22:21:24 Judge Page 10 of 10