Orissa High Court
Maa Kunari Transport vs State Of Odisha .... Opp.Party on 10 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No. 245 of 2022
Maa Kunari Transport,
represented through its
Managing Partner, Sri
Sanatan Mahakud .... Petitioner
Mr.Y. Das, Senior Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opp.Party
Mr.Dillip Kumar Mishra
Addl. Government Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
ORDER
Order No. 10.08.2022
02. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Video Conferencing/Physical Mode).
Mr. Yasobant Das, learned Senior Advocate files
appearance memo on behalf of the petitioner, which is
taken on record.
Heard Mr. Y.Das, learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Dillip Kumar
Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the
State.
In this petition so also in the connected
applications i.e., CRLREV No.244 of 2022, CRLREV
// 2 //
No.246 of 2022, CRLREV No.247 of 2022 and CRLREV
No.248 of 2022, the petitioners have challenged the
order dated 29.04.2022 of the learned S.D.J.M.,
Keonjhar passed in C.M.C. No.19 of 2022, C.M.C.
No.22 of 2022, C.M.C. No.21 of 2022, C.M.C. No. 20
of 2022, C.M.C. No.21 of 2022 in rejecting the petition
under section 457 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioners
with a prayer to de-freeze the Bank Accounts of the
petitioners which are five in numbers.
Mr. Dillip Kumar Mishra, learned Addl.
Government Advocate appearing for the State of
Odisha submitted that earlier the petitioners
approached this Court with a similar prayer in CRLMP
Nos. 164, 165, 166, 167 and 168 of 2018 and as per
the judgment and order dated 04.06.2021, this Court
taking into account the ratio laid down in the case of
Teesta Atul Setalvad -Vrs.- State of Gujarat
reported in (2018) 2 Supreme Court Cases 372,
directed the petitioner to approach the Investigating
Officer or the opposite party no.4 in those CRLMP
cases for de-freezing of all the accounts and it was
further observed that in the event relief sought for by
the petitioners is not acceded to either by the I.O. or
by the opposite party no.4, it would be open to the
petitioners to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate
by filing appropriate application with the
// 3 //
same/identical prayer. The judgment pronounced in
the earlier applications filed by the learned counsel for
the State is taken on record.
Mr. Dillip Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the
State submitted that though the petitioner appeared
before the Investigating Agency only once on receipt
of the notice under section 160 of Cr.P.C. but the I.O.
asked him to produce the documents to show how the
money came to his five accounts, which is around 110
crores and thereafter the petitioner did not turn up
and it is a case where the accusation against the
petitioner is funding the agitators to extract money
from the mine owners who have taken different mines
on lease.
Mr. Y. Das, learned Senior Advocate appearing
for the petitioners, on the other hand, submitted that
only once the petitioner has received notice under
section 160 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter he was granted
anticipatory bail by this Court and he produced the
copy of the order before the Investigating Officer and
in terms of such order, he has been released on bail
but thereafter no notice has been served on the
petitioner to produce any documents and the
petitioner is now ready and willing to produce the
documents and co-operate with investigation.
In view of such contradictory stand taken by the
// 4 //
respective parties, let the Investigating Officer file an
affidavit as to when he issued notices to the petitioner
and what was the response of the petitioner, if any, to
such notices. The affidavit shall be filed annexing the
copies of such notices. Learned counsel for the
petitioner shall file an affidavit of the petitioner
indicating his stand taken today during course of
argument. The affidavits shall be exchanged between
the parties.
List this matter on 23.08.2022 along with
CRLREV No.244 of 2022, CRLREV No.246 of 2022,
CRLREV No.247 of 2022 and CRLREV No.248 of 2022.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
P
