Rana Bhadra 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 EOW, Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No.15 of 2018 arising out of C.T. Case No.4(C) of 2018 pending in the file of Presiding Officer, Designated Court, Under OPID Act, Balasore, for commission of offence punishable under Sections 420/406/467/468/471/120-B of IPC read with Section 4/5/6 of Prize Chits & Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act and Section 6 of Orissa Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, on the allegation of attracting gullible persons to deposit amount in different scheme on the assurance of high return and, thereby, cheating some of the innocent depositors for a sum of Rs.60,54,000/-.

Heard, Mr. B.K. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J.P. Patra, learned counsel for the OPID in the present matter and perused the record.

At the outset, it is informed that the petitioner is in custody since 29.11.2018, but the trial is yet to commence and, thereby, it is reasonably not known when trial would be concluded, if commences at the earliest. A report was also called for from the PO, OPID Court, Balasore, who in his report, has submitted that the case now stands posted for production of accused Rana Bhadra and appearance of accused Pakki Trinath Ganesh and production of other co-accused persons namely Raja Bhadra, Rabindra Nath Dey, Shantanu Bhattacharya and Sarit Chakrabarty. Further, the report also discloses that charge-sheet was submitted on 27.03.2019 keeping the investigation open under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. Prolong incarceration generally militates against the most precious Fundamental Right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, but here in this case, the accused has been detained in custody on the expectation of trial, which has not yet commenced. Law is very clear that an accused cannot be detained in custody for ad-infinitum without assurance of right to speedy trial.

In view of the above facts and after having considered the rival submissions and taking into consideration the long incarceration of the petitioner for near about five years without any progress in trial and taking into consideration the other circumstance on record in entirety and the law laid down by the Apex Court in Satendra Kumar Antil Vrs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2021) 10 SCC 773 and further, the principle that bail is the rule, but jail is the exception, 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.20,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty Lakhs) in addition to bail bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) only 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 appear before the Court in seisin of the case on each and every 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) the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission till disposal of the case,

(iv) the petitioner shall report attendance before the IO as and when required,

(v) the petitioner shall inform the Court as well as the I.O. as to his place of residence during the trial/investigation by providing his mobile number(s), residential address, e-mail, if any, and other documents in support of proof of his residence. The petitioner shall also inform his change of residential address/movement to other place for more than seven days.

(vi) the petitioner shall surrender his Passport, if any before the learned trial Court

The I.O. 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 for similar type of offences in future on prima facie accusations may be considered 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.

…………………………