Orissa High Court
Pradeep Kumar Pattnaik vs State Of Odisha on 26 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No. 12820 of 2022
Pradeep Kumar Pattnaik .... Petitioner
Mr. H.K. Mund, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. K.K. Gaya, ASC
CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
ORDER
26.04.2023
Order No.
05. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
2. The petitioner is an accused in connection with C.T. Case
No.1279 of 2022, pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M.,
Bhawanipatna, arising out of Bhawanipatna Town P.S. Case No.484
of 2022 for alleged commission of offences under Sections
420/409/468 of IPC.
3. Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for bail
U/s.439 Cr.P.C. by the learned Sessions Judge, Kalahandi,
Bhawanipatna, by order dated 14.12.2022 in the aforementioned case,
the present BLAPL has been filed.
4. It is submitted by Mr. Mund, learned counsel that the
petitioner is in custody since 21.11.2022 and since final form is filed
on 28.02.2023, taking into account that the allegations are under
Section 409/420 and 468 of IPC, further continuance of the petitioner
in custody is not warranted.
5. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that even if the entire allegation of the prosecution is taken
at its face value, there is no material on record to indicate that there
was entrustment so as to justify the accusation under Section 409 of
IPC and on the basis of materials on record, no offence under Section
468 of IPC is also made out.
6. Mr. Gaya, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer
for bail inter alia on the ground that preliminary charge sheet has been
filed and the investigation has been kept open since Rs.81,00,000/-
(Rupees Eighty-One Lakhs Only), the amount involved is yet to be
traced.
7. On perusal of the materials on record, it is seen that the
petitioner was admittedly working as a conductor on contractual basis
of the OSRTC since 2010.
8. It was part of his duty being attached to M.V. section to deal
with the registration of vehicles deposit of onetime tax and road tax.
9. In the year 2022, one Pratipada Kumar Jena joined as Asst.
Manager (Depot) on 01.10.2022. And, when he applied for the fitness
certificate of the buses for October-2022, it came to the fore that there
is pending tax of Rs.81,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty-One Lakhs Only)
with the penalty up to November 2022. It is borne out on verification,
that the present petitioner during his incumbency has prepared
duplicate forged receipt to indicate that tax has been paid which, have
been seized.
10. In the recent judgment, in the case of Satender Kumar Antil
vrs. Central Bureau of Investigation & another, reported in (2022)
10 SCC 51 while reiterating the principle that bail is the rule and jail
is the exception, and laying down the guidelines in the matter of
consideration of bail application, the Apex Court consciously placed
economic offences not covered by Special Acts in a distinct category
11. It is borne out from the record, as noted that the public
money to the tune of about Rs.81,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty-One Lakhs
Only) is defalcated and there is no trace of that money and hence
further investigation in the case at hand is going on.
12. Hence, this Court finds force in the submission of Mr. Gaya,
learned counsel for the State that if the petitioner is released at this
stage the further investigation to detect such money trail would be
derailed.
13. Hence on a conspectus of materials on record, this Court is
not inclined to entertain this bail application at this stage.
14. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands rejected.
(V. NARASINGH)
Judge
Santoshi
