Orissa High Court
Bhim vs State Of Odisha ...... Opp. Party on 5 March, 2025
Author: Savitri Ratho
Bench: Savitri Ratho
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No. 1714 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4272 of 2024, BLAPL No.
4381 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4383 of 2024 and BLAPL No. 4662 of
2024
Applications under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
--------------
BLAPL No. 1714 of 2024
Bhim ...... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha ...... Opp. Party
For Petitioner : Mr. Vikas Singh Basta,
Advocate
For Opp. Party : Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, ASC and
Mr. J.P.Patra ASC
BLAPL No. 4272 of 2024
Yogendra Singh ...... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha ...... Opp. Party
For Petitioner : Mr. Prabhu Prasanna Behera,
Advocate
For Opp. Party : Mr. J.P.Patra, ASC and
Mr. G.N. Rout, ASC
BLAPL No. 4381 of 2024
Ashish Kumar ...... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha ...... Opp. Party
BLAPL 1714 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4272 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4381 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4383 of 2024 and BLAPL
No. 4662 of 2024
Page 1 of 23
For Petitioner : Mr. Haripad Mohanty,
Advocate
For Opp. Party : Ms. Samapika Mishra, ASC
and Mr. J.P.Patra ASC
BLAPL No. 4383 of 2024
Tej Kumar ...... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha ...... Opp. Party
For Petitioner : Mr. Haripad Mohanty,
Advocate
For Opp. Party : Ms. Samapika Mishra, ASC
and Mr. J.P. Patra ASC
BLAPL No. 4662 of 2024
Raghu Anand ...... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha ...... Opp. Party
For Petitioner : Mr. Sukumar Gourab,
Advocate
For Opp. Party : Ms. Samapika Mishra, ASC
and Mr. J.P. Patra ASC
CORAM:
HONOURABLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
JUDGMENT
05.03.2025
Savitri Ratho, J. All these applications under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. have been
BLAPL 1714 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4272 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4381 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4383 of 2024 and BLAPL
filed for grant of bail to the petitioners in connection with Cyber Crime
P.S. Case No. 21 of 2023 corresponding to C.T. Case No. 1630 of 2023
in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar under Sections 419,
420, 465, 467, 471, 120-B/34 of IPC read with Section 66 (C)/ 66 (D) of
the I.T. Act. These applications were heard on different dates. As they
arise out of the same FIR, they are being disposed of this common
order.
Mr Karnan Sattar learned counsel appearing in BL APL 4381 of
2024 filed by Ashish Kumar has submitted in Court today that during
pendency of the bail application, C.T. No. 1630 of 2023 has been
transferred from the Court of the SDJM, Bhubanesswar to the Court of
the JMFC ( LR And TV) Bhubaneswsar. He has also submitted a Memo
to that effect which is taken on record.
PROSECUTION ALLEGATIONS
2. Initially FIR was registered against unknown persons on the
information of one Dillip Kumar Jalan lodged FIR on 04.10.2023 at the
Cyber Cell Police Station. He alleged that he has a HDFC Life
Insurance Policy in the name of his wife. In the first week of July,
2023, he received a call from an unknown person regarding premature
release of the policy. He received calls from numbers 9812467649,
BLAPL 1714 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4272 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4381 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4383 of 2024 and BLAPL
7207660964, 9911266906, 9193041401, 9812493952, 9953057289,
8376858433, 9910586356, 9911041392, 8750376496 and as per the
advice of the caller, he transferred Rs.76,15,955/- to different bank
accounts between 05.07.2023 to 28.09.2023 in Account No.
921010046625512, 34889554692, 10577035908 and 2845322439 and
had attached the payment details. On the basis of his FIR, a case was
registered against unknown persons for commission of offences under
Sections- 419, 420, 465, 467, 471, 120-B, 34 of IPC read with Sections
66(C) / 66(D) of IT Act. During investigation it was found that from
these accounts, amounts had been withdrawn or transferred to other
accounts .
3. Chargesheet has been submitted on 18.03.2024 under Sections 419,
420, 465, 467, 471, 120-B/34 of IPC read with 66-C/66-D of IT Act,
2000 against Bhim , Yogendra Singh, Tej Kumar, Ashish Kumar, ,
Raghu Anand, Rupali Gupta, Pramoda Valli and Bhanu Pratap
Yadav, keeping investigation open under Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C. for
collection of additional evidence and identity of Kabya Singh ( Axis
Bank account holder) and Vikas Kumar Gupta( Union Bank of India
account holder), certificates under Bankers Book of Accounts and
Section - 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act . In the chargesheet one
BLAPL 1714 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4272 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4381 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4383 of 2024 and BLAPL
hundred sixty six articles / documents have been mentioned to have
seized during investigation and relied upon and thirty four witnesses
have been cited. Trial has not started in the case.
EARLIER BAIL APPLICATIONS
4. BLAPL No. 375 of 2024 filed earlier by Ashish Kumar
petitioner in BLAPL No. 4381 of 2024; BLAPL No. 370 of 2024 filed
earlier by Tej Kumar petitioner in BLAPL No. 4383 of 2024 and
BLAPL No. 378 of 2024 filed earlier by Yogendra Singh petitioner in
BLAPL No. 4272 of 2024 have been disposed of on 22.01.2024
granting liberty to them to move the learned court below for bail afresh
after completion of investigation.
5. Before that the prayer for bail of Bhim, petitioner in BLAPL
No.1714 of 2024 has been rejected on 11.01.2024 by the learned 5 th
Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar. After filing of chargesheet on
18.03.2024, the prayer for bail of the Ashish Kumar, petitioner in
BLAPL No. 4381 of 2024), Tej Kumar petitioner in BLAPL No. 4383
of 2024), Raghu Anand, petitioner in BLAPL No. 4662 of 2024 and
Yogendra Singh petitioner in BLAPL No. 4272 of 2024) have been
dismissed on 22.04.2024 by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge,
Bhubaneswar in BLAPL No. 707 of 2024, BLAPL No.708 of 2024,
BLAPL 1714 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4272 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4381 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4383 of 2024 and BLAPL
BLAPL No.722 of 2024 and BLAPL No. 705 of 2024 respectively.
6. The prayer for bail of co accused Pramada Valli @
Pramada Valli Ponukumati in BLAPL No. 14282 of 2023 and Rupali
Gupta in BLAPL No.3805 of 2024 have been allowed by this Court on
12.07.2024.
SUBMISSIONS
7. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners and the learned State Counsels on different dates and
perused the case diary.
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
BHIM
8. Mr Basta learned counsel appearing on behalf of Bhim,
petitioner in BLAPL No. 1714 of 2024 has submitted that the petitioner
is in custody since 20.11.2023 . The petitioner works in a call centre and
no incriminating material has been recovered against the petitioner. The
insurance policy allegedly purchased by the informant on 29.08.2013
has not been seized by the police. He has no previous criminal
antecedents and as investigation has been completed he may be released
on bail.
BLAPL 1714 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4272 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4381 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4383 of 2024 and BLAPL
YOGENDRA SINGH
Mr. Prabhu Prasanna Behera, learned counsel for the petitioner-
Yogendra Singh in BLAPL No. 4272 of 2024, has submitted that the
petitioner runs a financial institution and he is in custody since
20.11.2023. The complainant has submitted that money has been
transferred to four accounts but none of these accounts belong to the
petitioner. It has been alleged that a sum of Rs.11,19,000/- has been
transferred to his account from two of these four accounts, one of which
belongs to Kavya Singh, but Kavya Singh is not an accused in the case
nor does he know Kavya Singh. He has no criminal antecedents and has
been falsely implicated in the case. He has submitted that one Ankush
who had business connections with the petitioner was to pay him money
for investing and assuming that the money had been deposited in his
account on behalf of Ankush, he had withdrawn the amount of
Rs.11,19,000/-. He had intimated this to the investigating officer but the
latter made no effort to trace or examine Ankush. He further submitted
that the petitioner is ready to deposit an amount up to Rs.5,00,000/-
without prejudice to his rights and defence in the case.
ASHISH KUMAR and TEJ KUMAR
Mr. Haripad Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the
BLAPL 1714 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4272 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4381 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4383 of 2024 and BLAPL
petitioner- Ashish Kumar in BLAPL No. 4381 of 2024 and petitioner-
Tej Kumar in BLAPL No. 4383 of 2024 has submitted that the
petitioners are in custody since 21.11.2023 and they do not have any
criminal antecedents. He further submitted that Ashish Kumar is a
nephew of Tej Kumar and had transferred Rs.65,000/- to his account.
In case of co-accused Pramoda Valli, the entire amount which came to
her account and Rs. 28,00,000/- has been transferred to account of
Ashish Kumar and Rs.5,00,000/- had been transferred to the account of
Tej Kumar. From the account of Tej Kumar, Rs.65,00,000/- had been
transferred to the account of Ashish Kumar. Ashish Kumar had
transferred the amount of Rs.45,000/- to the account of Bhanu Pratap.
Only the balance amount had been withdrawn by him.
RAGHU ANAND
Mr. Sukumar Gourab, learned counsel for the Raghu Anand,
petitioner in BLAPL No. 4662 of 2024) has submitted that petitioner is
in custody since 21.11.2023 and he has no criminal antecedent and there
is no chance of his absconding and influencing witnesses for which he
may be released on bail. He has further submitted that the investigation
is defective and even accepting the allegations against the petitioner to
be true, no offence under Sections - 465, 467, 471, of the IPC nor
BLAPL 1714 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4272 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4381 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4383 of 2024 and BLAPL
Sections 66 (C) and 66(D) of the IT Act is made out against him. As
investigation in the case is over, he should not be detained any further in
jail custody.
SUBMISSION SON BEHALF OF STATE OF ODISHA
9. Ms. Samapika Mishra, Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, Mr. J.P. Patra and
Mr. G.N Rout learned Additional Standing Counsels appearing for the
State of Odisha on different dates, vehemently opposed the prayer for
bail submitting that the petitioners alongwith the co accused Rupali
Gupta and Pramada Valli @ Pramada Valli Ponukumati, have cheated
the complainant and her husband of a huge amount of money in a
preplanned manner and they acted conjointly in pre - planned manner.
The two co accused - Rupali Gupta and Pramada Valli @ Pramada Valli
Ponukumati who are women have been granted bail as they are women
and therefore, they stand on a different footing than the present
petitioners. As the petitioners do not belong to the State of Odisha and
some of them have similar criminal antecedents, they are likely to
commit similar offences and it will be difficult to secure their presence
during trial.
BLAPL 1714 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4272 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4381 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4383 of 2024 and BLAPL
BHIM
It has been submitted by the learned State Counsels that accused
Bhim was working in one company-MSR Wealth Creation Pvt. Ltd and
was dealing with selling of Insurance Policies and has shared the policy
details of the complainant Dillip Jalan with accused -petitioner Raghu
Anand. He has spoken with the complainant Dillip Jalan and told him to
deposit cash in the accounts of SBI and Kotak Mohindra banks, in the
account numbers given by Raghu Anand. He has taken 25% share of
the deposits done by the complainant and purchased gold and silver
jewellery for his four unmarried sisters. He has also repaid some
handloans taken by his father using this money. During interrogation co-
accused Rupali Gupta has admitted that she was working along with her
associates Raghu Anand and Bhim. One Rupay credit card has been
seized at his instance. As the petitioner does not belong to Odisha, it
will be difficult to secure his attendance in the trial and investigation if
he is released on bail.
YOGENDRA SINGH
The learned State counsels have submitted that accused Yogendra
Singh has two bank accounts and on a number of occasions money has
been transferred to his two accounts from that of one Kavya Singh
BLAPL 1714 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4272 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4381 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4383 of 2024 and BLAPL
which amounts to Rs.11,19,000/- and this money has been withdrawn by
the petitioner. Neither Ankush nor Kavya Singh could be traced. He
further submitted that as accused is a resident of Uttar Pradesh, he is
likely to abscond, if he is released on bail.
ASHISH KUMAR
The learned State counsels have submitted that during
investigation, it was ascertained that Kotak Mahindra Bank Account No.
2845322439 stands in the name of the petitioner Ashish Kumar, PB
No. 59 536A, Kitex house, Choorakodu, Kizhakkambalam, Aluva,
Ernakulam-683562, Kerala. Mobile No. 6390073232, Debit Card No.
4280902897202594, and the complainant Dillip Kumar Jalan has
transferred Rs.11,56,000/- to this account. On analysis of the account
statement of A/C No. 2845322439 for the period from 1 st July 2023 to
6th October, 2023, it could be ascertained that Rs.11,56,000/- has been
credited in this account from the account of victims. Out of that amount
Rs.07,58,000/- has been transferred to the Union Bank A/C No.
359802011014438 of Bhanu Pratap Yadav and Rs.3,76,000/- has been
withdrawn from ATM at Azamgarh. Further Ashish Kumar received
Rs.65,000/- from Tej Kumar out of this, he transferred Rs.45,000/- to
Union Bank A/C No. 359802011014438 of Bhanu Pratap Yadav.
BLAPL 1714 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4272 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4381 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4383 of 2024 and BLAPL
TEJ KUMAR
Opposing the prayer for bail of petitioner -Tej Kumar, the
learned State Counsels have submitted that the complainant Dillip
Kumar Jalan has transferred Rs.08,32,000/- to SBI A/C No.
34889554692 which stands in the name of name of Tej Kumar, S/o-
Khedan Ram. Mobile No. 9598074317, Aadhar No., ATM Card issued
on 01 June, 2023. From analysis of the account statement, it was found
that Rs.08,32,000/- has been credited in this account from the accounts
of complainant between 01.07.2023 and 05.10.2023. Out of this amount,
Rs.5,70,000/- has been transferred to Account No. 359802011014438 of
Union Bank of India (IFSC No. UBIN0535982) belonging to Bhanu
Pratap Yadav, Rs.65,000/- has been transferred to Kotak Mahindra
Account No. 2845322439 of Ashis Kumar, Rs.1,23,490/- has been
transferred to Union Bank Account No. 658401150000001 and
658401010050041 of Vikash Kumar Gupta.
RAGHU ANAND
The learned State Counsels have opposed the prayer for bail of
accused Raghu Anand stating that the complainant Dillip Kumar Jalan
has reported in the F.I.R. that the fraudster has called him from Mobile
BLAPL 1714 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4272 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4381 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4383 of 2024 and BLAPL
No. 9911041392, which has been seized from co accused Rupali Gupta
@ Aditi Agrawal @ Manshi. During interrogation co-accused Rupali
Gupta has admitted that she was working along with her associates
Raghu Anand and Bhim. She also produced the communications
(screen shots from her mobile phone) she had with other co-accused
namely Raghu Anand, Tej Kumar, Pramada Valli, Bhanu Pratap
Yadav and also with the complainant Dillip Kumar Jalan. The
petitioner-Raghu Anand has been arrested on 20.11.2023 During
investigation, he opened his mobile and in the presence of two witnesses
produced screen shots of his communication with the informant and
other accused persons. The following articles have been seized from
him:
(i) One cheque book in the name of Bhanu Pratap Yadav bearing
A/C No. 359802011014438 having IFSC No. UBIN0535982 of
Union Bank of India containing 21 pages.
(ii) One VISA Debit card bearing no. 4364700002192174 of Axis
Bank in the name of Bhanu Pratap Yadav has been seized from
his possession.
(iii) Cash of Rs.7,51,800/- has been seized from his possession.
BLAPL 1714 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4272 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4381 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4383 of 2024 and BLAPL
In addition to this number a debit card, passbook, cheque of
different banks and ID card of many non-banking finance companies
have also been seized from him and he admitted during investigation that
the money deposited by the complainant Dillip Kumar Jalan was
transferred to the Union Bank and Axis Bank accounts of Bhanu Pratap
Yadav and he withdrawn money from the account of co accused
Bhanu Pratap Yadav by using his debit cards of Union Bank and Axis
Bank. Using this money he has purchased one car (Hyundasi Creta) on
8th November, 2023 by making down payment of Rs.10 lakhs. He
unlocked his mobile and in presence of two Government witnesses and
produced the screenshots of the whatsapp communication with other
accused persons which have been seized on his production.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
10. Almost fifty years ago, in the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu v.
Public Prosecutor, High Court: (1978) 1 SCC 240, the Supreme Court
observed thus:
"What is often forgotten, and therefore warrants reminder, is the
object to keep a person in judicial custody pending trial or
disposal of an appeal. Lord Russel, C.J., said [R v. Rose, (1898)
18 Cox]:
BLAPL 1714 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4272 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4381 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4383 of 2024 and BLAPL
"I observe that in this case bail was refused for the
prisoner. It cannot be too strongly impressed on the,
magistracy of the country that bail is not to be withheld as
a punishment, but that the requirements as to bail are
merely to secure the attendance of the prisoner at trial.""
In the case of Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement:
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920, referring to the decision of Gudikanti
Narasimhulu ( supra) the Supreme Court has observed as follows : :
"53. The Court further observed that, over a period of time, the
trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well-
settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a
punishment. From our experience, we can say that it appears
that the trial courts and the High Courts attempt to play safe in
matters of grant of bail. The principle that bail is a rule and
refusal is an exception is, at times, followed in breach. On
account of non-grant of bail even in straight forward open and
shut cases, this Court is flooded with huge number of bail
petitions thereby adding to the huge 36 pendency. It is high time
that the trial courts and the High Courts should recognize the
principle that "bail is rule and jail is exception".
"55. As observed by this Court in the case of Gudikanti
Narasimhulu (supra), the objective to keep a person in judicial
custody pending trial or disposal of an appeal is to secure the
attendance of the prisoner at trial.
56. In the present case, the appellant is having deep roots in the
society. There is no possibility of him fleeing away from the
BLAPL 1714 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4272 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4381 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4383 of 2024 and BLAPL
country and not being available for facing the trial. In any case,
conditions can be imposed to address the concern of the State.
57. Insofar as the apprehension given by the learned ASG
regarding the possibility of tampering the evidence is concerned,
it is to be noted that the case largely depends on documentary
evidence which is already seized by the prosecution. As such,
there is no possibility of tampering with the evidence. Insofar as
the concern with regard to influencing the witnesses is
concerned, the said concern can be addressed by imposing
stringent conditions upon the appellant....."
11. In a catena of decisions, the Supreme Court has laid down the
principles to be kept in mind while considering a prayer for bail.
In the case of in Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar: (2020) 2 SCC 118,
the Supreme Court has held as follows:-
"12. The determination of whether a case is fit for the grant of
bail involves the balancing of numerous factors, among which
the nature of the offence, the severity of the punishment and a
prima facie view of the involvement of the accused are
important. No straight jacket formula exists for courts to
assess an application for the grant or rejection of bail. At the
stage of assessing whether a case is fit for the grant of bail,
the court is not required to enter into a detailed analysis of the
evidence on record to establish beyond reasonable doubt the
commission of the crime by the accused. That is a matter for
BLAPL 1714 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4272 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4381 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4383 of 2024 and BLAPL
trial. However, the Court is required to examine whether
there is a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the
accused had committed the offence and on a balance of the
considerations involved, the continued custody of the accused
sub-serves the purpose of the criminal justice system.........."
In the case of Sanjay Chandra vrs. C.B.I.: (2012) 1 SCC 40,
the Supreme Court has inter alia held as follows: -
" 21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down
from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the
appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable
amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor
preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a
punishment ,unless it can be required to ensure that an
accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The
courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that
punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is
deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.
22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention
in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of
great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that
some un-convicted persons should be held in custody pending
trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases,
`necessity' is the operative test. In this country, it would be
quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in
the Constitution that any person should be punished in
BLAPL 1714 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4272 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4381 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4383 of 2024 and BLAPL
respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted
or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his
liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the
witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary
circumstances. Apart from the question of prevention being
the object of a refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the
fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a
substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any
Court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former
conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not
or to refuse bail to an un-convicted person for the purpose of
giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson."
xxxxxxx
"40. The grant or refusal to grant bail lies within the discretion
of the Court. The grant or denial is regulated, to a large
extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case.
But at the same time, right to bail is not to be denied merely
because of the sentiments of the community against the
accused. The primary purposes of bail in a criminal case are
to relieve the accused of imprisonment, to relieve the State of
the burden of keeping him, pending the trial, and at the same
time, to keep the accused constructively in the custody of the
Court, whether before or after conviction, to assure that he
will submit to the jurisdiction of the Court and be in
attendance thereon whenever his presence is required.
BLAPL 1714 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4272 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4381 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4383 of 2024 and BLAPL
41. This Court in Gurcharan Singh and Ors. Vs. State AIR
1978 SC 179 observed that two paramount considerations,
while considering petition for grant of bail in non-bailable
offence, apart from the seriousness of the offence, are the
likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and his
tampering with the prosecution witnesses.
42. Both of them relate to ensure of the fair trial of the case.
Though, this aspect is dealt by the High Court in its impugned
order, in our view, the same is not convincing.
43. When the undertrial prisoners are detained in jail custody
to an indefinite period, Article 21 of the Constitution is
violated. Every person, detained or arrested, is entitled to
speedy trial, the question is: whether the same is possible in
the present case. There are seventeen accused persons.
Statement of the witnesses runs to several hundred pages and
the documents on which reliance is placed by the prosecution,
is voluminous. The trial may take considerable time and it
looks to us that the appellants, who are in jail, have to remain
in jail longer than the period of detention, had they been
convicted. It is not in the interest of justice that accused
should be in jail for an indefinite period. No doubt, the
offence alleged against the appellants is a serious one in
terms of alleged huge loss to the State exchequer, that, by
itself, should not deter us from enlarging the appellants on
bail when there is no serious contention of the respondent
BLAPL 1714 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4272 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4381 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4383 of 2024 and BLAPL
that the accused, if released on bail, would interfere with the
trial or tamper with evidence. We do not see any good reason
to detain the accused in custody, that too, after the completion
of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet..."
12. It is no longer res integra that a person's right to life and liberty,
which is guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India, cannot be
curtailed for an indefinite period, merely because the person is accused
of committing an offence . The purpose behind arresting and detaining a
person in jail is mainly for ensuring his presence during trial. Detention
of an accused may also be necessary during investigation, so that he / she
does not tamper with evidence or interfere with the investigation. It is
true that the amount the complainant and his wife have been defrauded
of, is a large sum and it prima facie appears that the petitioners have acted
in tandem pursuant to well chalked out plan. But all the offences alleged
against the petitioners are triable by a Magistrate. Trial has not yet
started. In view of the nature of allegations against the petitioners, the
documents which are required to be proved and the number of witnesses
who are to be examined, it is apparent that the trial cannot be concluded
at an early date. Without the allegations against the petitioners being
proved in the trial, I am of the view that their further detention will
amount to pre-trial punishment.
BLAPL 1714 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4272 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4381 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4383 of 2024 and BLAPL
13. In view of the above discussion and considering the nature of
allegations against the petitioners who have remained in custody for more
than fourteen months, the submissions that the petitioners do not have
similar criminal antecedents, I am inclined to allow their prayers for bail,
but subject to stringent conditions as the petitioners are not residents of
Odisha, in order to ensure their presence in the trial Court during trial.
14. It is accordingly directed that the petitioners Bhim, Yogendra
Singh, Tej Kumar, Ashish Kumar and Raghu Anand shall be released
on bail on such terms and conditions as the learned court in seisin over
the matter in C.T. case No 1630 of 2023 may consider fit and proper,
after verifying that they do not have similar criminal antecedents,
including imposition of appropriate cash surety, as well as the following
conditions:
(i) One of the sureties shall be a blood relation.
(ii) The petitioners should not tamper with prosecution evidence or try
to influence or threaten witnesses.
(iii) The petitioners shall not indulge in any criminal activity.
(iv) The petitioners shall provide the address in Bhubaneswar where
they intend to reside after their release and also provide the details of
BLAPL 1714 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4272 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4381 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4383 of 2024 and BLAPL
their permanent address along with name of the Police Station to the
learned trial Court, so that both addresses can be verified by the I.O. and
the latter can establish contact with the Officer in Charge / Station
House Officer of the Police Station before they are released on bail.
(v) The petitioners shall provide their active mobile number(s) to the
learned trial Court, so that the same can be verified by the I.O., before
they are released on bail. Any change in the mobile number(s) shall be
immediately informed to the Court, by their counsel within two days of
the change.
(vi) The petitioners shall not leave the Bhubaneswar U.P.D., without
permission of the learned trial Court.
(vii) The petitioners shall surrender their passports in the learned trial
Court. In case they do not possess passports, they shall submit affidavits
to that effect.
(ix) The petitioners shall remain personally present in the learned trial
court on each date of trial and co-operate for early disposal of the trial.
(x) They shall not seek for adjournment on frivolous grounds.
15. In the event of violation of any of these conditions or any other
condition that may be imposed by the learned Court in seisin over the
BLAPL 1714 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4272 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4381 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4383 of 2024 and BLAPL
matter, this order is liable to be recalled and / or the bail granted to the
petitioners cancelled.
16. Observations in this order have been made for purpose of
considering the bail application and are prima facie views and should not
influence the learned trial court which is to try the case strictly on the
basis of evidence led in the case.
17. BLAPL No. 1714 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4272 of 2024, BLAPL
No. 4381 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4383 of 2024 and BLAPL No. 4662 of
2024 are accordingly allowed.
18. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.
19. Copy of this order be supplied to Mr Gyanalok Mohanty learned
Standing Counsel for onward transmission to the I.O., Smt. Sabita Sahoo,
Inspector, CID, CB, Cuttack.
........................
(Savitri Ratho, J.)
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
5th March, 2024,
Puspa, Personal Assistant.
Signed by: PUSPANJALI MOHAPATRA
BLAPL 1714 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4272 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4381 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4383 of 2024 and BLAPL
