Lopamudra Nanda vs State Of Odisha

A.K. Mohapatra, J

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

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Perused the F.I.R., case diary and other relevant documents on record.

This is an application under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The petitioner is an accused in G.R. Case No.169 of 2023 arising out of Jagatpur P.S. Case No.76 of 2023 pending in the court of learned J.M.F.C.(R), Cuttack for commission of offence punishable under Sections 408/120-B, I.P.C.

The prosecution allegation as per the F.I.R., in brief, is that the petitioner was engaged as Junior Accountant-cum-Cashier on 12. 08.2021 in Sri Guru ICC(SGITC), under Sri Guru Trust at Jagatpur in the district of Cuttack and applied for leave from 12th day of January, 2023 to 3rd February, 2023 for the purpose of her marriage. During the period of Mr. K.K. Baral (Senior Accountant) was entrusted additional work of the petitioner. The said K.K. Baral has been disclosed and established that the petitioner her tenure as Cachier misappropriated a sum of Rs.52,03,201/- only by way of manipulation of records suppression of money receipt and fraudulently withdrawal of cash from the Bank for herself and self-gain. As per asked by K.K. Baral, the petitioner returned a sum of Rs.70,000/- to said Baral. On further queries, she spent the amount for the purpose of her marriage and purchased a bullet in the name of Deba Prasad Mishra, ornaments and reception ceremony in conspiring with her father, husband and brother-in-law.

It is submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, who is a lady, working as a Junior Accountant-cum-Cashier in Sri Guru ICC(SGITC) at Jagatpur, Cuttack. As per F.I.R. allegations, the petitioner has misappropriated a sum of Rs.52,03,201/-. However, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that investigation in the case already been concluded and charge-sheet has been filed and as per charge-sheet it is alleged that the petitioner misappropriated a total sum of Rs.15,00,000/-(rupees fifteen lakhs). Further, it is submitted that the offences alleged in the F.I.R. are triable by Magistrate. He also submits that the petitioner has returned a sum of Rs.70,000/- (rupees seventy thousand) to the informant in the meantime. On such grounds, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, who is a lady, is also entangled and the benefit of Section 437(1) proviso of the Cr.P.C. The bail application of the petitioner may be considered favourably and she may be released on bail in any terms and conditions imposed by this Court.

Leaned Additional Standing Counsel for the State vehemently, opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the present case is on financial misappropriation and the amount involved in the case is to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/-(rupees fifteen lakhs) although it has been disputed, charge-sheet has been submitted to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/-(rupees fifteen lakhs) has been misappropriated. In such view of the submission, bail application of the petitioner should be rejected at this juncture.

Considering the submissions made by learned counsels for the respective parties, , upon a conspectus of surrounding facts and circumstances, further keeping view the seriousness and gravity of offence, petitioner has returned a sum of Rs,.70,000/-(rupees seventy thousand), who is a lady and period of detention of the petitioner and Section 437(1) proviso of the Cr.P.C., it is directed that let the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned court in seisin over the matter one of the sureties is a relative one. While releasing the petitioner on bail, the court in seisin over the matter to impose any other conditions as would be deemed just and proper.

The Bail Application is accordingly disposed of.

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

……………………….