Aditya Kumar Mohapatra vs State Of Odisha

G. Satapathy, J

This is the bail application U/S.483 of the BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Tangi P.S. Case No. 269 of 2024 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1389 of 2024 pending in the Court of learned JMFC-II (Cog.Taking), Cuttack, for commission of offence punishable U/Ss.317(2)/ 318(4)/ 319(2)/320/ 322/ 323/ 324(5)/326(c)/ 337/ 338/ 334/ 340/ 351(3)/ 3(5) of BNS.

The relevant facts as involved in this case are that one Rabindra Kumar Mohapatra, who died on 10.04.2019 was succeeded by his wife Sujata Mohapatra (informant No.1), daughter Arundhati Mohapatra (informant No.2), elder son Aditya Kumar Mohapatra (accused-petitioner), younger son Arabinda Kumar Mohapatra and mother Champabati Devi who died on 19.09.2021, but after the death of Rabindra Kumar Mohapatra, the petitioner in connivance with other co-accused persons has fraudulently executed a forged and fabricated registered Power of Attorney bearing No. 41132209520, dated 12.08.2022 in favour of him and and his younger brother Arabinda Kumar Mohapatra for the undivided joint family property recorded in the name of the common ancestor Rabindra Kumar Mohapatra by forging documents, signatures and impersonating the informants.

2.1. The petitioner and his younger brother Arabinda Kumar Mohapatra (alleged Power of Attorney holder) in connivance with other co-accused persons have illegally mortgaged the landed property of late Rabindra Kumar Mohapatra in Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. without the knowledge and prior consent of the informants and misappropriated a sum of Rs.5,20,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crores Twenty Lakhs) received towards home loan.

2.2. The petitioner and others in connivance with other co-accused persons and by using forged Power of Attorney fraudulently transferred the immovable property of late Rabindra Kumar Mohapatra to himself and his younger brother by way of four forged registered sale deeds vide document No. 10432302692, dated 06.06.2023, Document No. 10432302693, dated 06.06.2023, Document No. 10432302884, dated 22.06.2023 and Document No. 10432302887 dated 22.06.2023 only to cheat and defraud the informants of their legitimate due.

2.3. It is also alleged that the petitioner have executed illegal and void registered lease deed vide document No. 10432203478, dated 23.08.2022 in favour of M/s. Ashirvad Pipes Pvt. Ltd. without the prior consent and authorization of the informants by forging documents, signatures and impersonating the informants only to deprive the informants of their legitimate dues.

Broadly, the aforesaid are the allegations appearing against the petitioner and other co-accused persons, but both the aforesaid informants had initially approached the Police, but according to them, no action was taken and thereafter, the informants as complainants instituted the complaint which was sent to police U/S.156(3) of CrPC only to be registered vide Tangi P.S. Case No. 269 of 2024 and the matter was investigated into, but finding the prima facie case, the petitioner was taken into custody and he is before this Court in this bail application after his bail application was turned down by the learned Presiding Officer S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Special Court, Cuttack.

Heard, Mr. Abhisekh Dash, learned proxy counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Debabrata Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M.R. Patra, learned Addl. PP and Mr. Subrat Mishra, learned counsel for the informant in the matter and perused the record.

After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against the petitioner for forging certain documents like Power of Attorney, sale deeds and mortgage deed only to secure financial benefit extending up to crores of rupees by entering into conspiracy with other co-accused persons. It is also alleged against the petitioner for transferring the joint family property to his own name by forging the signature of the informants and impersonating them and taking home loan of Rs.5,20,00,000/- by way of mortgaging the property without prior consent and knowledge of the informants. Besides, there is allegation against the petitioner for executing the lease in favour of M/s. Ashirbad Pipes Pvt. Ltd. in the same manner by forging and impersonating. The entire gamut of allegation against the petitioner is for forgery, cheating, criminal breach of trust, misappropriation and criminal intimidation, but it is, however, submitted for the petitioner that the dispute is civil in nature, but, it is too early to appreciate the allegation to conclude it to be a civil dispute, more particularly when there is allegation against the petitioner for executing registered Power of Attorney, sale deeds by forging the signatures of the informants and impersonating them as well as by mortgaging the property allegedly to secure financial benefit of Rs.5,20,00,000/-. Further, the investigation is going on and many things are yet to be unearthed, so also the documents.

It is, however, found from the record that the petitioner had approached this Court in an application U/S.482 of BNSS vide ABLAPL No. 12877 of 2024, wherein a co-ordinate Bench of this Court while rejecting the prayer for pre-arrest bail of the petitioner has inter alia observed that prima facie the ingredients of the offence are well made out and in the process public money to the tune of Rs.5,20,00,000/- also got entangled. The allegation against the petitioner somehow demonstrates commission of economic offence, which is considered to be a class apart, since economic offences by their very nature go beyond the horizon of mere dispute between the private parties.

Looking at the angle of the allegation, of course there is no allegation against the petitioner for cheating the general public, but the money allegedly secured from bank is the money of general public. One of the offences as alleged against the petitioner is for offence U/S.338 of BNS, which is punishable for imprisonment up to life, however, it may be argued to be a offence trible by Magistrate. In the context, this Court considers it profitable to refer to the decision in Rakesh Mittal Vrs. Ajay Pal Gupta @ Sonu Chaudhary and another; 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 170, wherein at paragraph-14 the Apex Court has held as under:-

"14. xx xx xx It would always be open to a Magistrate, if he is of the opinion that any of the offences in the case are exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, to commit the case to a Court of Sessions under Section 209 CrPC or Section 323 CrPC. It may be noted that under Section 323 CrPC, such power can be exercised by the Magistrate even during the course of the trial. Therefore, the assumption of the High Court that the case on hand is triable by a Magistrate is premature."

In view of the aforesaid discussion made hereinabove and taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the offence as alleged against the petitioner vis-à-vis the accusation sought to be brought against him and regard being had to the materials placed on record and last but not the least, taking into account the continuation of the investigation and the enormity of financial fraud by way of cheating, impersonation, forgery and criminal intimidation, this Court does not consider it proper to grant bail to the petitioner.

Hence, the bail application of the petitioner stands rejected. Accordingly, the bail application stands disposed of. A soft copy of this judgment be immediately transmitted to the Court in seisin over the matter for reference.