AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
14 paragraphs · 248 wordsS. K. Panigrahi
Mr. G.M. Rath, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State and Mr. Sunil
Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the CT & GST are present. Judgment prepared in separate sheets is delivered and pronounced in
open Court in presence of learned counsels for the parties, and the order is passed accordingly as follows:-
Considering the nature and gravity of the accusation, the nature of supporting evidence, availability of prima facie case against the petitioner,
coupled with the fact that a huge amount of public money has been misappropriated and also the fact that further investigation of the case is under
progress and taking into account the apprehension of the petitioner in tampering with the evidence, in the larger interest of society, I am not inclined to
release the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the bail application sans merit and hence stands rejected.
Before parting, it is clarified that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purposes of the present application and that the learned Trial
Court seisin over the matter shall proceed with the case uninfluenced by the observations made hereinabove.
As the restrictions due to the COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a soft copy of this order available in the
High Court’s website or print out thereof at par with certified copy in the manner prescribed, vide Court’s Notice No.4587, dated 25th March
2020
