High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH C TACK H COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAP LAPL No.12429 of 2022 noj Manoj Pattnaik @ Manoj Kumar Swain ..... Petitioner Mr. Chandrakan Advocate kanta Nayak, -versus- State Of Odisha (O.P.I.D .I.D.) ..... Opp. Party Op Mr. J.P. Patra Special Counsel nsel (O.P.I.D.) THE HON'BL N'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K.SAHOO CORAM: Order No. ORDER 04.04.2024 06. This matt atter is taken up through gh Hybrid arrangement (vid (video conferencing/physical mode) de).
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. Mr. Chandrakanta Nayak, learned ed counsel for the petitione ioner and Mr. J.P. Patra, learned ed Special Counsel appearin aring for the State of Odisha in O in O.P.I.D. matters. This is an a an application for bail under section tion 439 of Cr.P.C. in conne nnection with E.O.W., Bhubanesw eswar P.S. Case No.11 of 20 2015 corresponding to C.T. Case N se No.15 of 2015 pending in g in the file of learned Presiding ing Officer, Designated Cour ourt under the O.P.I.D. Act, Cutt Cuttack for alleged commis r mission of offences under sections s 420/467/468/471 /471/406 of Indian Penal Cod Code and Page 1 of 5 sections 4/5/6 o /6 of Prize Chits and Money Circ Circulation Schemes (Bannin nning) Act and section 6 of the O he O.P.I.D. Act. The prayer yer for bail of the petitioner was r as rejected by the learned ned Presiding Officer, Designated ated Court under the O.P. .P.I.D. Act, Cuttack, vide order rder dated 18.11.2022. Learned cou counsel for the petitioner submitt mitted that the petitioner is r is in judicial custody since 23.0 23.05.2015 and he has be been charge sheeted for the o e offences punishable unde under sections 420/467/468/471/ 71/406 of Indian Penal Cod Code and sections 4/5/6 of Prize Ch e Chits and Money Circulation ation Schemes (Banning) Act and se d section 6 of the O.P.I.D. .D. Act and earlier when the pe petitioner approached this this Court for bail in BLAPL No.10 o.10456 of 2019, as per o er order dated 28.09.2020, takin taking into account the per period of detention of the petition itioner and slow progress of s of the trial, this Court granted inte interim bail for a period of t of three months from the date of r of release, inter alia, with ith a condition that the petitioner ner has to furnish cash secu security of Rs.20,00,000/- (rupees ees twenty lakhs). Learned ned counsel further submitted th that the petitioner could uld not furnish such security for wh r which, he was not released sed from custody. Learned counsel nsel further submitted that a at at present, one of the I.O., who i ho is not a charge sheeted w ed witness was summoned to be ex e examined Page 2 of 5 by the prosecuti cution, which has been challenged ged by one co-accused Dev Dev Kumar Panda before this C s Court in CRLMC No.2795 795 of 2023 and the proceeding ha has been stayed and the the said order is still continuing. g. Learned counsel further s er submitted that the petitioner is r is one of the Directors of of the company and all other D r Directors have already bee been released on bail. Learned coun counsel has relied upon the d he decision of the Hon’ble Supreme reme Court in the case of of Rabi Prakash -Vrs.- The St State of Odisha reporte orted in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 53 533. The relevant paragrap graph is reproduced below: “4. As rega egard to the twin conditions contain ntained in section ion 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act, learn learned counsel for for the respondent – State has be s been duly heard ard. Thus, the 1st condition stan stands complied w d with. So far as the 2nd condition ion re: formation o n of opinion as to whether there re are reasonable ble grounds to believe t that the petitioner is er is not guilty, the same may not not be formed at at this stage when he has alrea already spent more ore than three and a half years ears in . custody. The prolonged incarcerati ration, generally m ly militates against the most precio recious fundamenta ental right guaranteed under Article ticle 21 of the Cons onstitution and in such a situation, on, the conditional nal liberty must override the statut atutory Page 3 of 5 embargo cr o created under section 37(1)(b)(ii) )(ii) of the NDPS A S Act”. Mr. Patra, le a, learned counsel appearing for th r the State of Odisha in O.P O.P.I.D. matters opposed the pra prayer for bail and submi bmitted that the company in wh which the petitioner was o as one of the Director accepted d d deposits from different de t depositors under different schem hemes and so far as the p e petitioner is concerned, an amo amount of Rs.16,07,117/- (rupees sixteen lakhs seven th n thousand one hundred se seventeen) has come to the p e personal account of the pe e petitioner. Considering ring the submission made by the the learned counsel for the the respective parties, the per period of detention of the the petitioner in judicial custody, th , the stage of trial and since ince the trial has already been sta stayed by this Court at th t the instance of one co-accused sed, I am inclined to releas lease the petitioner on bail. Let the pe petitioner be released on bail ail in the aforesaid case on e on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.5 s.50,000/- (rupees fifty tho thousand) with two local solvent s nt sureties each for the lik like amount to the satisfaction ion of the learned Court in t in seisin over the matter with ith further conditions as the the learned Court below may dee deem just and proper inclu ncluding the conditions that the pe petitioner shall not indulge ulge in any criminal activities an and shall appear before th e the learned trial Court on each ch date to Page 4 of 5 which the case w e would be posted for trial. Violation o n of any of the conditions shall shall entail cancellation of ba f bail. Issue u ue urgent certified copy as per Rules ules. Sipun Judge ( S.K. Sahoo) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 05-Apr-2024 16:31:52 Page 5 of 5