Abhaya Kumar Barik vs State Of Odisha

G. Satapathy, J

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).

This is a bail application U/S.439 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with C.T. Case No.4316 of 2012 arising out of Khandagiri P.S. Case No.539 of 2012 pending in the file of learned J.M.F.C.(V), Bhubaneswar, Khurda for commission of offences punishable under Section 420 of the IPC, on the allegation of cheating the informant and some other gullible depositors by collecting money from them on the pretext of supplying land by executing agreement.

Heard, Mr. B.K. Swain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. S.R. Sahoo, learned ASC and Mr. R.Sarangi, learned counsel for informant in the matter and perused the record.

At the outset, Mr. R. Sarangi, learned counsel for informant vehemently opposes the bail application and he inter alia submits that the petitioner is operating a chit fund company and thereby, he had cheated many persons and he is a history-sheeter. Mr. Sarangi also submits that the petitioner is a fraudster and had taken money from fourteen persons in this case on the pretext of supplying land, but he has not supplied land and thereby, cheated the innocent persons and therefore, the petitioner should not be enlarged on bail. Mr. Sarangi further submits that the trial Court may be directed to complete the trial.

This Court on the last date has sought for clarification from the State which was produced today in the shape of report of I.I.C. Lingaraj P.S. wherein the I.I.C. has stated that the investigation in Lingaraj P.S. Case No. 201 of 2014 is still pending and the I.O. had seized four sale deeds and one general power of attorney and the transaction of Rs. 2.5 Crores alleged in the F.I.R has not been mentioned in the Case Diary nor the initial I.O. had seized any documents in this regard. Besides, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is in custody since 24.11.2022 and in the meanwhile, charge sheet has already been submitted in the present case.

In view of the above facts and after having considered the rival submission and taking into consideration the nature and gravity of accusations raised against the petitioner and keeping in view the mode and manner of implication of the present petitioner and regard being had to the law laid down by the Apex Court in Satendra Kumar Antil Vrs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2021) 10 SCC 773 and taking into account the other circumstance on record in entirety, this Court admits the petitioner to bail.

Hence, the bail application of the petitioner stands allowed and the petitioner is allowed to go on bail on furnishing property surety of Rs. 10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten Lakhs) free from any encumbrance, in addition to bail bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs) with two local solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin of the case on such terms and conditions as deem fit and proper by it with following conditions:-

(i) the petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail,

(ii) the petitioner shall attend the trial Court on each date of posting without fail unless his attendance is dispensed with. In case the Petitioner fails without sufficient cause to appear in the Court in accordance with the terms of the bail, the learned trial Court may proceed against the Petitioner for offence U/S.229-A of IPC in accordance with law,

(iii) in case the petitioner misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence, proclamation U/S.82 of Cr.P.C. is issued and the petitioner fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the learned trial Court is at liberty to initiate proceeding against him for offence U/S.174-A of the IPC in accordance with law and

(iv) the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission till disposal of the case.

(v) the petitioner shall report attendance before the Jurisdictional Police Station once in a fortnight preferably on Sunday of every month in between 10 A.M. to 12 Noon for six(06) months from the actual date of release from the custody.

(vi) the Petitioner shall inform the Court as well as the I.O. as to his place of residence during the trial by providing his mobile number(s), residential address, e-mail, if any, and other documents in support of proof of residence.

The I.I.C. of Jurisdictional Police Station shall not detain the petitioner unnecessarily after recording his attendance beyond the time as stipulated.

It is clarified that the Court in seisin of the case will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the petitioner without further reference to this Court, if any of the above conditions are violated or a case for cancellation of bail is otherwise made out. In the wake of aforesaid, the subsequent involvement of the petitioner in future for similar offences on prima facie accusations may be treated as a ground for cancellation of bail in this case.

It is made clear that the Court in seisin of the case, while releasing the Petitioner on bail may verify the residential proof of the local sureties by taking the help of local police, if required to ascertain their proof of residence and such exercise must be completed within a reasonable period of not more than one week.

Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.

Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules.

…………………………………