Mahasweta Biswal vs State Of Odisha
2022 Latest Caselaw 2687 Ori

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                              BLAPL NO. 893 OF 2020
            Mahasweta Biswal                    ....                   Petitioner
                                                         Mr.R.K.Pattanaik, Adv.
                                          -versus-
            State of Odisha                    ....                  Opp. Party
                                                        Mr.G.R.Mohapatra,ASC

                                                        Mr.Devashis Panda,Adv
                                                        (for Informant/OP No.2)


                     CORAM:
                     MR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
                                  ORDER

19.05.2022 I.A. No. 447 of 2022 ( Arising out of BLAPL No.893 of 2020 disposed of vide judgment Order No. passed by this Court on 25.08.2020)

23 1. This matter is taken up by hybrid mode

2. This is an application for extension of time for repayment of due amount.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Standing Counsel and learned counsel appearing for the informant-opposite party No.2 in the I.A. 447 of 2022 filed on 22.03.2022.

4. The petitioner being an accused in connection with EOW, Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No.21 of 2019 corresponding to C.T. Case No.10 of 2019 pending before the Court of the learned Presiding Officer, Designated Court under the O.P.I.D. Act, Cuttack for commission of offences punishable under Sections

// 2 //

406/420/120-B of the I.P.C. read with Section 6 of the Odisha Protection of Interests of depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act,2011, had filed a bail application vide BLAPL No.893 of 2020 under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 before this Court which was disposed of by order of this Court vide Judgment dated 25.08.2020. The operative portion of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:

xxx xxx xxx "20. It is worthwhile to add at this juncture that the petitioner has filed an affidavit dated 20.08.2020 pursuant to a direction passed by this Court and has admitted the amount payable by the accused persons and the company. She has also proposed to make repayment in the manner as described under paragraph-5 of the said Affidavit which is reproduced hereinbelow;

i.5%-after one month i.e. Rs.9,45,000 ii.15%-after three months i.e. Rs.28,35,000/- iii.80%-within two months i.e. before completion of six months a sum of Rs.1,51,00,000/-".

21. Based on the aforesaid solemn undertaking, this Court relies and places faith in the aforesaid affidavit and hopes that the petitioner will abide by time schedule provided by her as indicated hereinabove. The payments shall be made by the Petitioner/company to the informant in the manner as indicated hereinabove, failing which, the same will amount to a breach of faith placed in the petitioner by this Court and will be viewed very seriously.

22.Considering the aforesaid discussion, submissions made and taking into account a holistic view of the facts and circumstances of the

// 3 //

case at hand, this Court hereby directs that the Petitioner be released on bail in connection with EOW Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No.21 of 2019 corresponding to C.T.Case No.10 of 2019 pending before the Court of learned Presiding Officer Designated Court, OPID Act, Cuttack Accordingly, the Bail Application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the accused/ petitioner stands allowed.

23. It is, however, clarified that the above observations shall not come in the way of a fair trial before the learned Trial Court and it will proceed to decide the matter on its own merit as per law."

5. It is pertinent to mention that since the petitioner could not make repayment in the manner described in the aforesaid judgment, due to the slow down in real estate sector due to COVID-19 Pandemic. Thus, she filed an interim application vide I.A. No.253 of 2021 seeking more time to make repayment of the outstanding amount which was allowed by this Court taking into account the precarious financial condition of the petitioner.

It was also observed in that order that:

"failure to repay the money as per the affidavit dated 28.08.2020 the interim bail granted to the petitioner shall render cancellation of the bail."

6. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another I.A. No.1105 of 2021 for modification of terms and conditions but the same was dismissed with a direction to surrender before the concerned court in seisin over the matter and file surrender certificate thereto.

// 4 //

7. However, in lieu of filing surrender certificate, he has further filed another application vide the present I.A. No.447 of 2022 on 22.03.2022 for extension of time with respect to repayment of outstanding amount. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner has filed a brief chart on 13.05.2022 before this Court through his counsel which reveals the detailed transaction of amount between the petitioner and the informant.

8. It is needless to mention here that as per a statement shown to the Court by the petitioner, it reveals that the petitioner has already paid an amount of Rs.9,45,000/- on 01.03.2021 and 14.03.2022 respectively through Demand Draft to the informant by Speed Post. Another amount of Rs.35,00,000/- was also paid through RTGS, a further amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was also paid through RTGS, an amount of Rs.2,37,000/- was paid through RTGS on 12.05.2015 and a further amount of Rs.40,00,000/- has been paid by the petitioner at Saheed Nagar P.S. in the year 2016. In addition to the above, the petitioner has also transferred a house property in the name of the cousin of the informant on the instruction of the informant in the year 2015 by way of Registered Sale Deed which is of Rs.80,000,00/- though the informant denies to have received the said amount. Whatever may be the issue the entire transactional dispute is a subject matter of trial. Prima facie it appears that the informant is fully secured in so far as his monetary transaction with the petitioner is concerned. Hence, detention of the petitioner further, is definitely not warranted. If any further settlement to be made or any dues are to be

// 5 //

settled, the said facts be brought before the trial court which can verify the same and proceed accordingly.

9. Learned counsel for the OPID vehemently opposed the bail of the petitioner as there is some outstanding dues to be recovered from the petitioner.

10. However, having heard the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the compliance of the conditions as fixed earlier in the bail application vide BLAPL No.893 of 2020 to a greater extent this Court is of the view that further detention of the petitioner in jail custody will defy the ends of justice.

11. However, it is submitted that the petitioner is availing interim bail from time to time by extension process, this Court further directs the petitioner to surrender before the learned court in seisin over the matter in connection with EOW Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No.21 of 2019 corresponding to C.T. Case No.10 of 2019 and move application for bail, the said court shall consider the same on such terms and conditions as deemed just and proper with further conditions that:

i. the Petitioner shall appear before the learned trial court on each date of posting of the case; ii.she shall not tamper with the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

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

12. Accordingly, the I.A. is disposed of.

13. It is however, clarified that the above observations as made shall not come in the way of a fair trial before the learned Trial

// 6 //

Court and it will proceed to decide the matter on its own merit as per law.

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

( S.K. Panigrahi) Judge

LB