Dr. Pradeep Ku. Panigrahy vs State Of Odisha
2021 Latest Caselaw 6340 Ori

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                              BLAPL No. 4276 of 2021

            Dr. Pradeep Ku. Panigrahy              ....           Petitioner
                                           Mr. Pitambar Acharya, Advocate
                                        -versus-
            State of Odisha                        ....      Opposite Party
                                        Mr. Ashok Parija, Advocate General

                        CORAM:
                        JUSTICE S. K. PANIGRAHI

Order No.                              ORDER
                                     11.06.2021

02. 1. This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.

2. Heard, Mr. Pitambar Acharya, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Ashok Kumar Parija, learned Advocate General for the State of Odisha.

3. This is an application under Section 439 of CrPC for grant of bail to the petitioner in connection with Golanthara PS FIR No. 110 of 2021 corresponding to GR Case No. 678 of 2021, pending in the court of learned SDJM, Berhampur for offences punishable under sections 420 and 120-B of the IPC.

4. The petitioner moved an application for bail before the learned SDJM, Berhampur which was rejected on 20.05.2021.

5. Mr. Pitambar Acharya, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a sitting MLA of 132-Gopalpur Assembly Constituency in the district of Ganjam.

6. Mr. Acharya, learned Senior Advocate further contended that the complainant claims to have paid an amount of ₹2 lakh to the petitioner for securing job for // 2 //

himself in TATA Motors. However, there is neither any documentary proof nor the complainant has offered any plausible explanation for delay in filing the complaint. The complainant has stated that he became aware of the alleged fraud on 26.11.2020 through TV channel but preferred to remain silent for a period of 6 months to lodge the complaint. The complainant himself is a resident of Golanthara and at least three FIRs have successively been filed with the selfsame accusation against the petitioner between 03.12.2020 to 12.01.2021 at Golanthara Police Station. Further, it is important to note here that the complainant has failed to give any explanation for the delay in filing of the complaint. Reliance is placed on Kishan Singh V. Gurpal Singh reported as (2010) 8 SCC 775 and Thulia Kali V. State of T.N., reported in (1972) 3 SCC 393 to show that FIR is a vital piece of evidence and delay in institution of the FIR should be satisfactorily explained.

Interestingly, Ld. SDJM proceeded in the mater in most hush hush manner with unusual haste to act upon the complaint and directed enquiry of the case under Section 156(3) of CrPC.

7. As the matter stands, the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit ₹2,00,000 (Rupees Two Lakh only) without prejudice before the Learned Court below. The petitioner has already been released on bail in all other cases hence the bail application of the petitioner may be favourably considered.

8. Mr. Ashok Kumar Parija, learned Advocate General appearing for the State does not dispute about the amount of cheating involved in this case is to the tune of ₹2,00,000 (Rupees Two Lakh only).

// 3 //

9. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, the nature of accusation against the petitioner, the period of detention of the petitioner in judicial custody, since the investigation has made substantial progress and the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the amount involved in the case, this Court is inclined to release the petitioner on bail.

10. Let the petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing cash security of ₹2,00,000 (Rupees Two Lakh only) within 20 days from the date of his release and bail bond of ₹1,00,000 (Rupees One Lakh only) with two local solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned court in seisin over the matter along with the following conditions:

(i) the petitioner shall not try to come in contact with any of the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the prosecution evidence;

(ii) the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the police or to the Court;

(iii) the petitioner shall appear before the learned trial court on each date to which the case would be posted for trial;

(iv) the petitioner shall not give any press interviews and shall not make any public comment in connection with this case qua him or other co- accused to print and electronic media.

11. On deposit of the aforesaid cash security amount of ₹2,00,000 (Rupees Two Lakh only) within said 20 days

// 4 //

by the petitioner, the learned SDJM, Berhampur shall issue notice to the informant and on his appearance and being duly identified by his counsel, the said amount shall be handed over to him. In case the prosecution fails to establish the charges against the petitioner during trial, he shall deposit the amount of ₹2,00,000 (Rupees Two Lakh only) in the trial court within one week of pronouncement of the judgment by the trial court, which shall be refunded back to the petitioner.

12. Violation of any of the conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail.

13. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of.

14. 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.

(S. K. Panigrahi) Judge AKP