Orissa High Court
Jeetendra Kumar Mishra vs State Of Odisha on 27 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ABLAPL No. 15611 of 2022
Jeetendra Kumar Mishra .... Petitioner
Mr. A.K. Pattnaik, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. K.K. Gaya, ASC
Mr. P.K. Dash, Adv (Informant)
CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
ORDER
27.02.2023
Order No.
04. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
2. The petitioner is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with
G.R. Case No.433 of 2022 arising out of Keonjhar Town P.S. Case
No.90 of 2022 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Keonjhar
for commission of offence punishable under Sections 418/420 of
IPC.
3. The accusation against the petitioner is that taking
advantage of the faith of the informant, he duped him to the tune of
Rs.36,94,330/- (Rupees Thirty Six Lakh Ninety-Four Thousand
Three Hundred Thirty Only) while he was working for the
informant. It is stated that out of said amount, Rs.19,77,200/-
(Rupees Nineteen Lakh Seventy-Seven Thousand Two Hundred
Only) was transferred to the account of the wife of the petitioner
and Rs.4,31,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh Thirty-One Thousand Only)
transferred to the account of his son.
4. This is the second journey of the petitioner to this Court.
By order dated 07.06.2022, this Court declined to entertain the
anticipatory bail application of the petitioner in ABLAPL No.5307
of 2022.
5. Referring to Annexure-4, BBSR office expenses of Utkal
Computer Care of which the informant is stated to be the proprietor,
learned counsel submits that the petitioner was a salaried employee
and was getting Rs.70,000/- per month.
6. It is his further submission that the amount has been
transferred to his wife's account as because she was one of the
Directors of the company and the payment to his son was on
account of developing a software for the company of the informant.
7. It is submitted that since charge sheet has already been
filed on 31.08.2022 under Section 418/420 of IPC showing him as
an absconder, he may be released on pre-arrest bail. He also refutes
the accusation of avoidance of notice under Section 41-A of the
Cr.P.C.
8. Learned counsel for the State and informant submit that
there has been no change circumstance since the last time, the
petitioner moved this Court unsuccessfully. Merely because charge
sheet has been filed, petitioner ought not to be released on
anticipatory bail. But, the learned counsel for the informant and
State do not dispute that there is no bar for invoking the jurisdiction
of this Court for the second time in an application under Section
438 of Cr.P.C.
9. Perused the final form submitted. It has been categorically
stated therein that the investigating agency tried to serve a notice
under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. but the wife of the accused avoided the
same and as such citing him as an absconder charge sheet has been
filed. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the State
and informant that in view of the conduct of the petitioner he should
not be released on anticipatory bail.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has adverted to
proceeding before the NCLT and states that commercial transaction
in essence is being given the colour of criminality and complaint
case has been instituted.
11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the informant brings to
the notice of the Court that after disposal of the earlier anticipatory
bail application on 07.06.2022, the case in NCLT has been filed on
09.06.2022. It is thus stated that because of rejection of order of
anticipatory bail, proceeding before the NCLT was instituted.
Hence, such proceeding cannot come to the aid of the petitioner.
12. Be that as it may, the genesis of the present offence is the
complaint case pursuant to which, the present FIR had been
registered. On perusal of final form it is clear that the nature of
allegations is more or less based on documentary evidence. Keeping
in view that the punishment prescribed is 7 years, filing of final
form and in the light of the Judgment of the Apex Court in the cases
of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273
and Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau f Investigation and
another reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51, this Court directs that on
surrendering before the learned Court in seisin, within a period of
two weeks from today in the aforementioned case, the petitioner
shall be released on bail. Terms to be fixed by the learned Court in
seisin.
13. It is further directed that he shall cooperate with the
investigation which according to the learned counsel for the State is
continuing and shall appear before the I.O. as and when summoned
and shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Court in seisin
without its express permission.
14. Accordingly, the ABLAPL stands disposed of.
15. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rule.
(V. NARASINGH)
Judge
Santoshi
