Orissa High Court
Jaya Prakash vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 16 July, 2025
Author: V. Narasingh
Bench: V. Narasingh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ABLAPL No. 6151 of 2025
1. Jaya Prakash .... Petitioners
Sahu @ Jaya
Prakash Sahoo
2. Sushila Sahu
Mr. A. Mohanty, Sr. Advocate
Mr. P. Patnaik, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. S.N. Das, ASC
Mr. S. K. Mishra, Sr. Advocate
Mr. S.R. Behera, Adv. (Informant)
CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
ORDER
16.07.2025
Order No.
02. 1. Memo of appearance filed by Mr. A. Mohanty,
learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners is taken on
record.
2. Heard Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel
instructed by Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel for the
Petitioners, Mr. Das, learned Additional Standing
Counsel for the State and Mr. Mishra, learned Senior
Counsel instructed by Mr. Behera, learned counsel for
the Informant.
3. The Petitioners are seeking pre-arrest bail in
connection with C.T. Case No.256 of 2025 pending on
the file of learned J.M.F.C., Kesinga arising out of
Kesinga P.S. Case No.262 of 2025 for commission of
offences punishable under Sections 409/420/34 of
IPC.
4. It is submitted by Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior
Counsel for the Petitioners that admittedly the
dispute relates to short supply of 8220 quintals of
paddy (Custom Milled Rice) by the Petitioners who
were the millers for the period 2009-10.
5. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel
for the Petitioners that apprehending coercive action,
the Petitioners approached this Court in W.P.(C)
No.7914 of 2013 and the same was disposed of by
order dated 01.02.2023.
6. It is apt to note that the Civil Supplies
Corporation was represented by learned Senior
Counsel Mr. Mishra, who is appearing for the
Informant-Corporation here also.
7. Paragraph-2 of the said order is extracted
hereunder for convenience of reference;
"2. On perusal of the present writ petition,
it appears that the Petitioner has approached
this Court for a direction to the Opposite
Parties not to take any coercive action against
him for recovery of balance excessive paddy or
the cost of said excessive paddy, against
which, the rice has not yet been delivered to
the Corporation including not to lodge any
F.I.R against the Petitioner and other partners
of the firm."
(Emphasized)
8. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel
for the Petitioners, Mr. Mohanty that so far as the
allegation of short supply is concerned, in fact
Petitioners had supplied the rice in question but the
same was not accepted alleging poor quality.
It is his further submission that the entire
allegation is offshoot of contractual obligation and
there are several means available to the Opposite
Party-Corporation to recover the financial loss and
since admittedly the entire allegation is based on
documentary evidence, custodial interrogation of the
Petitioner is not necessary.
9. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Mishra
appearing for the Civil Supplies Corporation submits
that in terms of the order passed by this Court,
opportunity of hearing was given to the Petitioners to
justify their action, but unfortunately the Petitioners
did not respond and since public money is involved,
Petitioners ought not to be protected by pre-arrest
bail.
Submission of the learned counsel for the
State is also in the same light and it is his further
submission that since the investigation is still going
on, the Petitioners ought not to be protected by pre-
arrest bail.
10. At this juncture, it may not be out of place to
refer to the latest judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of Satender Kumar Antil vrs. Central Bureau
of Investigation and another reported in 2023
SCC Online SC 452 where dealing with the nature of
prayer in an anticipatory bail, the Apex Court has laid
down that anticipatory bail is another facet of bail and
the principles which govern the granting of bail while
the accused is in custody apply in equal measure
while considering the application for pre-arrest bail.
11. This Court finds force in the submission of the
learned Senior Counsel Mr. Mishra that public money
is involved but at the same time, this Court cannot
lose sight of the fact that there are ways and means
available with the Opposite Party-Corporation to
recover the same.
It is also stated by learned Senior Counsel Mr.
Mishra, appearing for the Corporation, on instruction,
that in the meanwhile proceeding under the OPDR
has already been instituted for recovery. The
requisition so submitted is taken on record.
12. Considering the rival submissions on the anvil
of the law laid down as above in the case of
Satender Kumar Antil (Supra) and taking into
account the nature of allegation which is prima facie
based on records and the Petitioners are not a flight
risk, Petitioner No.2 being a lady, this Court is
persuaded to hold that their custodial interrogation is
not warranted.
13. Hence, it is directed that on surrendering
within three weeks hence and moving for bail, the
Petitioners shall be released on bail by the learned
Court in seisin on such terms as deemed just and
proper.
14. Before releasing the learned Court shall verify
as to whether order of this Court has been assailed
before the Apex Court and if so, the result thereof.
15. It is needless to state that the Petitioners shall
cooperate with the ongoing investigation and shall
not leave the country without express permission of
the learned Court in seisin.
16. Accordingly, the ABLAPL stands disposed of.
17. U.C.C. as per rules.
(V. NARASINGH)
Judge
Santoshi
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
