The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL Nos.11681, 11757 & 11937 of 2024 BLAPL No.11681 of 2024 Bidyadhar Bhue ..... Petitioner(s) State of Odisha -versus- ..... Represented By Mr. S.K. Jena, Adv. Opposite Party(s) Represented By Mr. T.K. Acharya, ASC BLAPL No.11757 of 2024 Umesh Badhei ..... Petitioner(s) State of Odisha -versus- .....
Legal Reasoning
Represented By Mr. S.K. Padhy, Adv. Opposite Party(s) Represented By Mr. T.K. Acharya, ASC BLAPL No.11937 of 2024 Babulu Satpathy ..... Petitioner(s) State of Odisha -versus- ..... Represented By Mr. J.J. Khuntia, Adv. Opposite Party(s) Represented By Mr. T.K. Acharya, ASC Page 1 of 6 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA CORAM: Order No. 02.
Decision
ORDER 12.12.2024 1. These matters are taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Since, these 3 bail applications under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 have arisen out of one case vide C.T. Case No.1726 of 2024 in connection with Bargarh Town P.S. Case No.595 of 2024, then these 3 bail applications are taken up together analogously for their final disposal through this common order. 3. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned ASC for the State. 4. The petitioners are in jail custody having been implicated under Sections 318(3)/319(2)/336(3)/338/340(2)/341(1)/342(2) and 61(2) of the BNS,2023 on the allegations alleged against them that, one Amar Bhosagar was the original owner of the land vide plot No.891/1543 under Khata No.325/462 in Mouza-Dang under town P.S. Bargarh in the district of Bargarh. The said original owner of plot No.891/1543 under Khata No.325/462 died leaving behind his widow wife and two sons i.e. Pahantia Bhosagar, Suresh Bhosagar and Saroj Bhosagar as his successors. After the death of the original owner of the said land i.e. Amar Bhosagar, his above three successors i.e Pahantia Bhosagar, Suresh Bhosagar and Saroj Bhosagar became the joint owners of Plot No.891/543 and they belong to Scheduled Caste community. So, they Page 2 of 6 (Pahantia Bhosagar, Suresh Bhosagar and Saroj Bhosagar) with Babulu Satpathy, Rajkishore Sahoo and Jayaprakash Das made a plan for selling that plot illegally on the basis of forged and fabricated permission Order under Section 22 of the OLR Act, 1960. In order to execute their such plan, Pahantia Bhosagar, Suresh Bhosagar and Saroj Bhosagar made an application under Section 22 of the OLR Act, 1960 vide OLR Case No.128 of 2023 before the learned Sub-Collector, Bargarh for granting permission to sell that Plot No.891/1543 in favour of Babulu Satpathy, Rajkishore Sahoo and Jayaprakash Das, but during the pendency of that said OLR Case No.128 of 2023, Sub-Collector, Bargarh transferred. So, taking the advantage of the transfer of the Sub-Collector, Bargarh, the petitioner Babulu Satpathy, Rajkishore Sahoo and Jayaprakash Das along with Pahantia Bhosagar, Suresh Bhosagar and Saroj Bhosagar created a forged and fabricated permission Order under Section 22 of the OLR Act, 1960 in favour of Babulu Satpathy, Rajkishore Sahoo and Jayaprakash Das in spite of the pendency of the OLR Case vide OLR Case No.128 of 2023. The said forged and fabricated permission Order under Section 22 of the OLR Act, 1960 was produced before the sub-Registrar, Baragarh by Pahantia Bhosagar, Suresh Bhosagar and Saroj Bhosagar with a sale deed for registration of the sale deed in favour of Babulu Satpathy, Rajkishore Sahoo and Jayaprakash Das and that permission order with sale deed was received first by the petitioner Bidyadhar Bhue (Junior Revenue Assistant of sub-Registrar Office, Bargarh) from Pahantia Bhosagar, Suresh Bhosagar and Saroj Bhosagar in the Sub-Registrar Office , Bargarh and handed over the same to his senior i.e. petitioner-Umesh Badhei of the said sub- Registrar’s Office and thereafter, the sale deed attached with the forged and fabricated OLR permission Order was produced before the Page 3 of 6 Registrar and then sale deed in respect of Plot No.891/1543 was registered in favour of Babulu Satpathy, Rajkishore Sahoo and Jayaprakash Das. Thereafter, on the basis of that sale deed in favour of Babulu Satpathy, Rajkishore Sahoo and Jayaprakash Das on the strength of forged and fabricated OLR permission, the said Babulu Satpathy, Rajkishore Sahoo and Jayaprakash Das sold the said plot No.891/1543 to 10 other persons illegally and obtained money for unlawful gain. 5. When the vendees of Babulu Satpathy, Rajkishore Sahoo and Jayaprakash Das produced their respective sale deeds before the Tahasildar for mutation, it was detected by the Tahasildar that, the original sale deed in favour of Babulu Satpathy, Rajkishore Sahoo and Jayaprakash Das has been executed on the strength of an forged permission order, to which, the Tahasildar intimated to newly joined Sub Collector, Bargarh. Then, the Sub Collector, Bargarh lodged the FIR and on the basis of which, case was registered and investigation was started. During investigation, the petitioners were arrested and forwarded to the Court after being booked with the aforesaid offences and since then, they (petitioners) are in jail custody. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners i.e. Bidyadhar Bhue and Umesh Badhei submitted for liberal consideration of their bail contending that, the petitioners i.e. Bidyadhar Bhue and Umesh Badhei are Government Servants and they are serving as Junior Revenue Assistant in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Bargarh, for which, the chance of their absconding after their release on bail is remote. Page 4 of 6 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner i.e. Babulu Satpathy also submitted for liberal consideration of his bail contending that, Babulu Satpathy is one of the vendee of the original sale deed along with Rajkishore Sahoo and Jayprakash Das, but his co-accused persons i.e. his co-vendees in that sale deed, those are standing in similar and equal footing with him have already been allowed to go on bail from the Court of learned S.D.J.M. as per the direction of the Hon’ble Courts vide Order dated 21.11.2024 passed in ABLAPL No.12313 of 2024. 8. The learned ASC for the State vehemently objected the bail applications of the petitioners contending that, the investigation of the case is going on and other materials are yet to be recovered and if at this stage, they (petitioners) will be allowed to go on bail, then, there is every possibility of tampering with the evidence of the prosecution by them, for which, they (petitioners) should not be allowed to go on bail. 9. When the petitioners i.e. Bidyadhar Bhue and Umesh Badhei both are the Government Employees and they are serving as Junior Revenue Assistants in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Bargarh and when the main object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused persons during trial and when the presence of the petitioners i.e. Bidyadhar Bhue and Umesh Badhei during investigation and trial is not unsecured, as they are Government Employees and when the other co-vendees of the petitioner-Babulu Satpathy in the sale deed i.e. Rajkishore Sahoo and Jayaprakash Dash have not been arrested by the police during investigation, rather they have been allowed to go on bail, as per the direction of the Hon’ble Courts, then, at this juncture, by taking the above factors into account, I find no justification to disallow the prayer for bail of the petitioners. Page 5 of 6 10. Hence, the bail applications filed by the petitioners are allowed 11. They (petitioners) are allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/-(rupees fifty thousand) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court in seisin over the case with conditions that :- They (petitioners) shall not involve with similar (i) nature of crime in future. (ii) They (petitioners) shall appear before the court personally on each date of adjournment of the case till its conclusion. (iii) They (petitioners) shall not terrorize, coerce, influence or threat to any witnesses of the prosecution either directly or indirectly in any manner whatsoever at any stage of the trial of the case, but, in case of their failure to comply any one of the aforesaid conditions, the learned trial court is authorized to cancel their respective bail orders outrightly without seeking any permission for the same from this Court. 12. Accordingly, all the three bail applications filed by the petitioners are disposed of finally. 13. Grant certified copy of this order to the petitioners on their proper applications. ( A.C. Behera ) Judge Rati Ranjan Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RATI RANJAN NAYAK Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack, India. Date: 12-Dec-2024 19:37:44 Page 6 of 6