Susanta Kumar Swain vs State Of Odisha (Vigilance)

A.K. Mohapatra, J

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

Heard Mr. Millan Kanungo, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S. Dasmohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the informant and Ms. J. Tripathy, learned counsel for the State Vigilance. 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 V.G.R. Case No.12 of 2023 arising out of Bhubaneswar Vigilance P.S. Case No.09 of 2023 pending in the court of learned Special Judge(Vigilance), Bhubaneswar for commission of offence punishable under Section 7 of the P.C.(Amendment) Act, 2018.

On perusal of the first information report, it appears that one Dr. Subash Mohapatra, who is an Advocate by profession, lodged F.I.R. before the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar making allegations against the present petitioner, who was working as a Sub-inspector, Khandagiri Police Station, Bhubaneswar. It is further alleged in the F.I.R. that the said Sub-inspector, Khandagiri Police Station, Bhubaneswar demanded a cash of Rs.2,00,000/-(rupees two lakhs) to submit final report as a mistake of fact against his client. It is further alleged that on bargaining, the said petitioner reduced his bribe amount to Rs.50,000/-(rupees fifty thousand) and instructed the informant to pay him the demanded bribe directly and not through his client. While the informant was giving money to the said petitioner, he was caught red handed by the Vigilance Department and the said amount has been recovered from his possession.

It is submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 06.04.2023 and the petitioner has been falsely entangled in the present case on rivalry. He further submits that no further custodial interrogation is necessary for the purpose of investigation. Further, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is no chance of absconding and he shall appear before the learned trial court on each and every date of posting and he shall abide by any terms and conditions imposed by this Court.

Learned counsel appearing for the informant, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner has been threatening the informant. Accordingly, he submits that in event he is released on bail, there is possibility might again threaten and cause harm to the informant in this case.

Leaned Additional Standing Counsel for the State Vigilance vehemently, opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the investigation in the case is going on and the charge-sheet has not been filed. Therefore, release of the petitioner, at this juncture, will prejudice the investigation which is going at the moment.

Considering the submissions made by learned counsels for the respective parties, on careful consideration of the gravity of offence as alleged in the F.I.R. and further taking into consideration the custodial detention of the petitioner as well as the fact that the petitioner is a Government servant, who was working as a Sub-Inspector of Police, 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 each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned court in seisin over the matter. 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 one of the conditions that :-

I. While on bail, the petitioner shall not threaten, harass and terrorize the informant and his family members in any manner whatsoever; and

II. he shall not default in attendance of the court during trial on each date of posting;

Violation of any of the terms and conditions shall entail cancellation of bail.

The Bail Application is accordingly disposed of.

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

……………………….