Orissa High Court
Dhruti Ranjan Mohanty vs State Of Odisha on 26 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No. 2827 of 2020
Dhruti Ranjan Mohanty .... Petitioner
Mr. Bhagabat Prasad Rath, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opp. Party
Mr. A. K. Nayak, Additional Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE S. K. PANIGRAHI
ORDER
Order No. 26.08.2021
17. 1. This matter is taken up by video conferencing
mode.
2. Heard, learned counsel for the Petitioner and
learned counsel for the State.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Economic Offence
Wing, CID, Crime Brnach, Odisha, Bhubaneswar is
present in Court today.
4. The Petitioner is in custody in connection with EOW
CID, Crime Branch, Odisha, Bhubaneswar Police
Station Case No. 19 of 2018 corresponding to CT Case
No. 17 of 2018, pending before the learned Presiding
Office Designated Court (OPID Act), Cuttack,
registered for the alleged commission of offence under
Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the IPC
read with Section 6 of the OPID Act, 2011, has filed
// 2 //
this application under Section 439 of CrPC for his
release on bail.
5. The brief facts of the case is that the Petitioner is
the MD of DRM Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., entered into a
building development agreement with the Informant on
29.05.2009 and on 05.11.2011 respectively for the
purpose of construction of multi storied flats over the
land of the Informant in proportionate share 35% of
the Informant/landowner and 65% of the
Petitioner/developer, and the Informant also executed
a General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favour of the
DRM Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd for the purpose of
construction of multi storied flats. After construction
of multi storied flats, the Petitioner issued allotment
letters to the Informant in respect of Flat No. TG-4003,
TG-4004, (4th Floor), TG-2003, TG-2002 (2nd Floor) and
TG-1003 (1st Floor) and TG-3002 in proportionate of
35% shares as per the terms of the development
agreement. As a matter of fact, the Petitioner after
completion of multi storied flats sold-out the flats to
other persons executing six number of Registered Sale
Deeds, which have earlier been allotted to the
Informant/landowner. Therefore the Petitioner with
dishonest intention sold-out the shares of the
Informant/landowner which causes wrongful loss to
the Informant/landowner amounting to ₹2 crore 40
lakhs.
// 3 //
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that
since there is arbitration clause in the development
agreement, it is an arbitrable dispute, hence the
initiation of criminal proceeding is wrong. He further
submits that the Petitioner is ready and willing to
deposit a substantial amount of ₹15,00,000 (Rupees
Fifteen Lakh only) as cash security and ₹2,00,00,000
(Rupees Two Crore only) as solvent security of
immovable property free from encumbrances of the
requisite value of ₹1,89,00,500 (Rupees One Crore,
Eighty-Nine Lakh and Five Hundred only) at the time
of Petitioner admitted into bail in CT Case No. 17 of
2018 pending before the learned Presiding Officer,
Designated Court under the OPID Act, Cuttack.
7. Learned counsel for the State-OPID vehemently
opposed the bail prayer of the Petitioner. In support of
his contention, he has relied on one judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Trisuns Chemical
Industry vs Rajesh Agarwal And Others1 wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the arbitration is
a remedy for affording reliefs to the parties affected by
breach of agreement but the criminality of a breach of
the said agreement or any act which leads to criminal
complaint or facts which constitutes an offence shall
not clothe the Petitioner when the arbitration clause
and the criminal proceeding shall go independently
(1999 Cri LJ 4325)
// 4 //
without being influenced by any factum of
arbitrability.
8. In view of such position of law, this Court does not
want to go into the arbitration clause relied on by the
ld. counsel for the Petitioner.
9. Considering the submissions made, facts and
circumstances of the case, the Court in seisin over the
matter is directed to release the Petitioner on bail in
the aforesaid case on some stringent terms and
conditions as deemed just and proper including the
condition that he shall deposit the substantial amount
of ₹15,00,000 (Rupees Fifteen Lakh only) as cash
security and ₹2,00,00,000 (Rupees Two Crore only) as
solvent security of immovable property free from
encumbrances in order to cover the requisite value of
₹1,89,00,500 (Rupees One Crore, Eighty-Nine Lakh
Five and Hundred only) with further conditions that:-
i) he shall appear before the court below on each
date of posting of the case;
ii) he shall not threaten or coerce the informant
in any manner;
iii) he shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence in any manner;
iv) he shall depoisit his passport before the
learned trial court;
v) the Petitioner shall pay back the entire amount
of ₹1,89,00,500 (Rupees One Crore, Eighty-
Nine Lakh Five Hundred only) within a period
of six months from the date of his release on
bail;
// 5 //
vi) he shall appear before the Investigating Officer
every fortnight on Sunay at 10:00 AM to 12:00
Noon.
10. The court in seisin over the matter is directed to
look into the proper valuation certificate of the said
property and the genuineness of the property
document.
11. Violation of any of the above condition shall entail
cancellation of the bail.
12. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of.
13. Personal appearance of the Superintendent of
Police, Economic Offence Wing, CID, Crime Brnach,
Odisha, Bhubaneswar is dispensed with.
14. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on
proper application.
(S. K. Panigrahi)
Judge
AKP
