Orissa High Court
Srinivas Shankar Mutta @ Mutta vs State Of Odisha on 14 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ABLAPL No. 14813 of 2022
Srinivas Shankar Mutta @ Mutta .... Petitioner
Shankar Srinivas
Mr. K. N. Pattanaik, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opp. Party
Mr. S. Patra, ASC
CORAM:
JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
ORDER
Order No. 14.12.2022
02. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and the State.
2. This is an application for bail U/s. 438 Cr.P.C. filed by the
Petitioner in apprehension of arrest for his alleged involvement in
the offences U/s. 120(B)/420/467/468/471 of IPC of IPC.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the S.I.
of Police (Bank Fraud Section), Detective Department, Kolkata in
Hare Street PS/DD Case No.297 dated 20.10.2022 issued notice
under section 160 of CrPC in connection with the said case alleging
involvement of the present Petitioner in offence under Section
120(B)/420/467/468/471 of IPC registered against him being the
owner-cum-Managing Director, Seven Hills Estates Limited
(Hotels) Annexure-1.
// 2 //
4. According to learned counsel since the Petitioner could not
appear as directed in the notice under Annexure-1 he had properly
informed the authority. It is also submitted that there is some bank
fraud and the present Petitioner has been named by some of the co-
accused persons who have been arrested in connection with the said
fraud and as such the Petitioner is apprehending custodial
interrogation, once he attends the Office of the S.I. of Police as
directed vide Memo No. 117/BFS/DD, dated 07.11.2022 under
Annexure-1. He, therefore, prayed for anticipatory bail.
5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, opposed the bail
application under Annexue-1 in vehemence.
6. Keeping in view the submissions of the parties and perusal of the
case record it reveals that the Petitioner has been issued with notice
U/s. 160 CrPC under Annexure -1 at the office of the S.I. of Police
(Bank Fraud Section), Detective Department, Kolkata.
7. Section 438 of CrPC stipulates for bail to a person apprehending
arrest and it confers power only upon the High Court and the Court
of Session to grant anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the
Petitioner while did not mention anything as regards a transit bail in
his prayer, in course of his submission, he pointed his argument
with regard to a "transit bail".
8. The Apex Court in the matter of Gurbakash Singh Sibbia and
Ors. Vrs. State of Punjab considered various aspects of powers
under section 438 of CrPC. It is observed therein that there is no
restriction on exercise of powers under Section 438 of CrPC in
respect of the offence outside the State.
// 3 //
9. It is apt to mention here that there are various judgments which
have taken view that such orders can be passed protecting the
citizens either for limited period or between final reliefs in respect
of the offence registered in different States. The 41st Law
Commission report recommends the provision of anticipatory bail
to safeguard the right to life and personal liberty of a person under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India. While the anticipatory bail is
granted in anticipation of arrest, it protects the detention of the
accused during the period of transit to require the accused to reach
the competent court from the place he is sought to be arrested. Be
that as it may, in the present case, the Petitioner intends transit bail
seeking his protection temporarily.
10. Taking note of the judgments, the grant of transit bail in respect
to the case registered within the jurisdiction of another High Court
in exercise of the power under Section 438 of Cr.P.C has been dealt
with in the matter of Nikta Jacov Vs. the State of Maharashtra,
(Anticipatory Bail Application No.441 of 2021, decided on
17.02.2021), Teesta Atul Setalvad and Anr. Vs. State of
Maharashtra and Ors. (Anticipatory Bail Appliaiton No.14 of
2014, decided on 31.01.2014).
11. In the light of the aforesaid judgments, it is submitted by the
learned counsel for the Petitioner that this Court is competent to
grant protection to the Petitioner while in transit to appear before
the authority to face interrogation to reach the jurisdiction of the
court where subject matter of the dispute lies.
// 4 //
12. Considering the aforesaid facts that the date on which the
authority had directed the Petitioner to appear vide Annexture-1
having been expired, the Petitioner apprehends arrest. In such view
of the matter keeping in mind the above facts and circumstances,
and relying on the decisions above referred this Court deems just
and proper to give protection to the Petitioner if he will approach
the competent authority for proper remedy under CrPC and hence,
directs that in the event of arrest, the Petitioner shall be released on
bail by the Arresting Officer upon personal bond of ₹50,000.00
(Rupees Fifty Thousand) to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer.
13. It is made clear that this transit bail shall remain in force for a
period of six weeks only from today.
14. With the aforesaid observations, the ABLAPL is disposed of.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
AK Pradhan
