Leena Mahesh Motewar vs Republic of India (CBI)

R.K. Pattanaik, J

Heard Mr.D. Panda along with Mr.Soumen Banerjee, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Sarthak Nayak, learned Special Counsel for CBI.

Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no non-compliance of the conditions as has been alleged by the learned counsel for the CBI. It is submitted that the condition Nos.(v) and (vi) have to be complied at the stage of trial but no charge has yet been framed in the present case. In so far as condition No.(vi) is concerned, an affidavit with regard to permanent and temporary address of the petitioner was to be furnished and it is claimed by Mr. Panda that same was furnished and that apart, the petitioner defaulted only on 5 dates which is evident from the impugned order dated 11th July, 2022 itself passed in SPE No.29 of 2014, consequent upon which, a non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner which is strongly objected to by Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the CBI and while stating so, he submitted that petitioner had been on default for 42 dates starting from 27th March, 2020 to 15th September, 2022. It is further claimed by Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the CBI that the petitioner grossly violated the condition No. (vi). Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact in the said condition, it was directed that the petitioner was to remain present within the jurisdiction of Pune court, which is claimed to have been violated. According to Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the CBI, the petitioner moved out of the jurisdiction of the court below without obtaining any prior permission which is denied by Mr. Panda. At this point, Mr. Nayak submits that an affidavit in that regard should be filed by the concerned IO.

A free copy of this order be handed over to Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the CBI for communication purpose with a direction to the concerned IO to file affidavit by the next date on the aforesaid aspect by sharing a copy of the same with Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner well ahead of the date of posting of the case.

Considering the submission of Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner since the matter is subjudice before this Court, till its disposal, the petitioner should be protected by an interim order.

Having regard to the above facts and submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties, this Court as an interim measure directs that there shall be no coercive action taken against the petitioner in connection with S.P.E. No.29 of 2014 pending in the court of learned Special C.J.M. (CBI), Bhubaneswar till the next date.

List this matter on 19th December, 2022.

Issue urgent certified copy of this order in course of the day and the order also be uploaded today in the Court’s website.

................................................