The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 14425 of 2023 Rajeev Lochan Das …. Petitioner Miss A. Mehta, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opp. Party Mr. S.K.Swain, AGA Mr. H.S.Mishra, Advocate for informant CORAM: JUSTICE M.S.SAHOO Order No.
Decision
ORDER 23.12.2024 Hybrid Mode 16. 1. The BLAPL praying for grant of bail, has been filed under Section 439, Cr.P.C. seeking release of the petitioner, who is in jail custody in connection with EOW, Bhubaneswar P.S.Case No.11 of 2023 corresponding to C.T.Case No.100 of 2023 pending in the Court of the learned Presiding Officer OPID Act, Cuttack for alleged commission of offences under Sections 420/406/465/ 467/468/294/506/120-B/34 of the I.P.C. read with Section 66 of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008. Since by earlier order dated 05.10.2023 in BLAPL No.6107 of 2023 with the prayer for grant of bail of the petitioner was disposed of as withdrawn by this Bench, in terms of Standing order No.2 of 2023 dated 21.05.2023 Page 1 of 6 the present petition has been placed before this Bench for consideration of the renewed prayer for bail. 2. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate appearing for informant takes exception to the learned counsel Miss Mehta appearing for the petitioner in the matter stating that she is associate of learned advocate Mr. Panda. In considered opinion of this Court said issue raised/objection is beyond scope of the present adjudication, i.e. consideration of the petition filed by the petitioner. 3. On 06.12.2024 the following order was passed : in filing of the petition “1. Vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioner is filed by Sri B.B. Mishra, Sri D.B. Rath along with Miss Ayushi Mehta, learned advocates. Vakalatnama shall be taken on record. 2. Miss Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the objections raised in the I.A. regarding defects is misconceived inasmuch as Annexure-C/1 to the I.A. came in the year 2024 and the petition was filed on 20.12.2023 supported by affidavit dated 19.12.2023. It is submitted that no defects have been pointed by stamp report and in any event of any defect/comment has been made by S.R. the same has been duly complied with. Learned counsel for the petitioner wants the matter to be heard on merits which is objected by the learned counsel for the informant indicating that I.A. No.1522 of 2024 filed on behalf of the informant/complainant should be taken up before the matter is heard on merits. 3. For the present without going into the questions to what extent the informant/complainant can oppose prayer for bail, it is felt necessary that since objection has been raised regarding stamp report Page 2 of 6 made by the Registry, the matter be verified by the concerned Stamp Reporter who is to furnish a note in the administrative side. 4. The matter shall be placed before the Registrar (Judicial) to do the needful for furnishing of report. 5. List on 13th December, 2024/when this Bench sits next.” 4. In response to the order dated 06.12.2024 the following report has been placed by the Stamp Reporter dated 10th December, 2024, through the Registrar(Judicial). “Registrar (Judicial) Pursuant to Hon’ble Court’s order no.15 dated 06.12.2024 passed in BLAPL no. 14425 of 2023 regarding Stamp Report made on 21.12.2023, I beg to submit the report as follows :- That the Stamp Report on BLAPL no. 14425 of 2023 was made by Shri Ranjit Kumar Mohanty, Addl. Stamp Reporter (since retired) on 21.12.2023. At the time of reporting, the new affidavit format according to High Court Rules has not come into force and affidavit were filed s per previous practice. the (Notice dt.08.12.2021 Registrar (J) is enclosed herewith). That in the month of February, 2024, the Hon’ble the Chief Justice instructed the Stamp Reporters to do the stamp reporting on affidavit as per the High Court rules and from that date the affidavits have been filed as per the new format. issued by In the instant case the Stamp Reporting was made on 21.12.2023. At that time the new format of the affidavit has not come into force. In the above circumstances except the defects pointed out by the then Addl. Stamp reporter, no other defect is found in the record of BLAPL no. 14425 of 2023. However for the inconvenience Page 3 of 6 caused to the Hon’ble court, I may kindly be excused.” 5. The report furnished by the Registry dated 10th December, 2024 is that there was no defect pointed out by the then Addl. Stamp Reporter as new affidavit format according to the High Court Rules had not come into force and affidavit has been filed as per previous practice i.e. notice dated 8.12.2021 issued by Registrar (Judicial) which is also enclosed to the report. Prescribed affidavit format as per notice dated 08.12.2021 is also provided enclosed to the said report. Accordingly, the matter being free of any defect pointed by Stamp Report is ready to be taken up. 6. At this stage the learned counsel Mr. Mishra for the informant submits that he wants copy of the Stamp Report submitted to the Registrar (Judicial). 7. In considered opinion of this Court supplying copy of the Stamp Report of the petition made by the Registry as per Rules, to the learned counsel for informant, is beyond the procedure provided as per the Orissa High Court Rules. Learned counsel is at liberty to peruse the same since he is insisting for and objecting to moving of the application filed by the petitioner after stamp report has been made indicating that there is no defect. 8. At this stage learned counsel for petitioner files memorandum of date seeking leave to withdraw the Page 4 of 6 petition to file it afresh before the learned court in seisin. The memorandum taken on record. Accordingly, the petition stands withdrawn with liberty to move the learned court in seisin of the matter. 9. Petition stands disposed of with liberty as prayed for. All other petitions arising out of the BLAPL as well as petitions, if any, filed by the informant stand disposed of. 10. Learned counsel for informant again submits that he has objection to the petitioner moving for bail before learned trial court. In considered opinion of this Court such liberty cannot be curtailed by any Court much less a Court exercising jurisdiction under section 439 of Cr.P.C. (since repealed). It is submitted by learned counsel for informant that the petition arising out of the BLAPL, purportedly filed under section 340 of the Cr.P.C. (since repealed) by the informant should be taken up. Relevant portion of Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. (since repealed) is reproduced herein: “340. Procedure in cases mentioned in section 195.—(1) When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of Justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, Page 5 of 6 such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary, - … …” 11. Having gone through the provisions contained in section 340 of Cr.P.C. (since repealed), in considered opinion of this Court, in view of the disposal of the BLAPL having been withdrawn without being considered on merits, the I.A. arising out of the BLAPL also stands disposed of. (M.S. Sahoo) Judge dutta Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AJIT KUMAR DUTTA Reason: Authentication Location: ohc Date: 24-Dec-2024 18:43:35 Page 6 of 6