Orissa High Court

An Application Under Section 439 Of The ... vs State Of Odisha ...... Opp. Party on 7 March, 2025

Author: Savitri Ratho

Bench: Savitri Ratho

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                            BLAPL No. 7435 of 2024

     An application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
     1973.

     Bhanu Pratap Yadav                               .....                    Petitioner

                                     -versus-

     State of Odisha                                 ......                   Opp. Party


     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     For Petitioner                  : Ms. Ayushi Mehta, Advocate

     For Opp. Party                : Mr. Sarbeswar Behera, Advocate
                                       (for state)
   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:
      HONOURABLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

                                 JUDGMENT

07.03.2025

Savitri Ratho, J. This application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

has been filed in connection with Cyber Crime P.S. Case No. 21 of 2023

corresponding to C.T. Case No. 1630 of 2023 pending in the court of the

learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar where charge sheet dated 18.03.2024

keeping investigation open in commission of offence under Section 419,

420, 465, 467, 471, 120-B, 34 of IPC read with Sections 66(C) /66(D) of

IT Act.

2. The prayer for bail of the petitioner and co-accused Rupali Gupta

has been rejected on 27.03.2024 by the learned 5th Additional Sessions

Judge, Bhubaneswar by a common order dated 27.03.2024 in B.A. No.

123 of 2024.

PROSECUTION ALLEGATIONS

3. 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, 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 .

4. 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

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.

SUBMISSIONS

5. Ms. A. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner is in custody since 21.11.2023 and he does not have any

criminal antecedents and an affidavit to that effect has been sworn by

one Manoj Kumar Mohanty, Advocate's clerk stating that the affidavit

has been filed as per instructions received from Mr. Devendra Kumar,

Advocate, Allahabad High Court. She submits that although it is the

prosecution allegation that Rs. 35,88,000/- had been transferred through

a bank account of the Union Bank namely Account No.

359802011014438 and Rs. 3,98,000/- had been transferred through an

Axis Bank account No. 923010026971949 and both accounts are in the

name of the present petitioner, but the said accounts have never been

operated by the petitioner and in fact the ATM Cards of one account was

recovered from the possession of one co-accused Rupali Gupta, who has

been granted bail by this Court in BLAPL No. 3805 of 2024 on

19.07.2024. The petitioner has no connection with the accounts and

investigation reveals that withdrawals using ATM card has been made

from Delhi, Faridabad and Balabhgarh while the petitioner is a resident

of Mirzapur. She has further submitted that in the meanwhile the

investigation has been completed and as all the offences are triable by

Magistrate First Class and two co-accused persons have been released on

bail, his prayer for bail may be sympathetically considered.

6. Mr. S. Behera, learned Additional Government Advocate opposed

the prayer for bail stating that this is a cyber-crime where the informant

and his wife have been cheated of a huge amount Rs.76 lakhs. During

investigation the cheque books as well as the pass books of the Axis

Bank Account have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner

and whatsapp details indicated that he was in communication with the

other accused through whatsapp from his regular mobile number

9911041392. Investigation revealed that substantial amounts have been

credited to the two account of the petitioner Bhanu Pratap Yadav.

An amount of Rs 28,73 ,000/- had been deposited in the account

of co accused Pramoda Valli by the victims out of which an amount of

Rs 24,75,000/- has been transferred to the Union bank account No.

359802011014438 of Bhanu Pratap Yadav and Rs 3,98,000/- has been

transferred to the Axis bank Account No. 923010026971949 of Bhanu

Pratap Yadav. In account number 34889554692 of Tej Kumar, Rs

8,32,000/- had been credited from the account of the complainant and his

wife , out of which Rs 5,70,000/- has been credited to account No.

359802011014438 of Bhanu Pratap Yadav. Rs 45,000/- out of Rs

65,000/- received by Ashish Kumar from Tej Kumar, has been

transferred to the Union Bank account Number 359802011014438 of

Bhanu Pratap Yadav and withdrawn by him. From the Kotak Mahindra

account No. 2845322439 of Ashish Kumar, out of Rs 11,56,000/-

credited to his account by the victims, Rs 7,58,000/- has been transferred

to the Union Bank account Number 359802011014438 of Bhanu

Pratap Yadav and Rs 3,76,000/- withdrawn by ATM at Azamgarh.

7. In a common order dated 05.03.2024 passed in 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 in respect of co-accused

persons Bhim, Yogendra Singh, Tej Kumar, Ashish Kumar and Raghu

Anand, their prayer for bail has been allowed considering the period of

custody, lack of criminal antecedent.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

8. The 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 petitioner seems to be the mastermind

behind the operation and he alongwith the co accused have acted in

tandem pursuant to well chalked out plan. But all the offences alleged

against the accused persons are triable by a Magistrate. Trial has not yet

started. Keeping in mind, 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. The two co accused who

are women had been granted bail in BLAPL No. 14282 of 2023 and

BLAPL No.3805 of 2024 on 12.07.2024. The prayer for bail of the

other co accused persons in 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 has been allowed by a common order

passed on 05.03.2025

9. Keeping in mind the primary object of granting bail , the

quantum of punishment prescribed for the offences the petitioner is

accused for committing , the period spent by the petitioner in custody,

unlikely chance of early completion of the trial, the submission regarding

lack of criminal antecedents , the grant of bail to the co accused

persons, I am inclined to allow the prayer for bail of the petitioner, but

subject to stringent conditions as the petitioner is not a resident of

Odisha, in order to ensure his presence in the trial Court during trial.

10. It is accordingly directed that the petitioner Bhanu Pratap

Yadav 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 he does not have any

criminal antecedents, including imposition of appropriate cash surety

keeping in mind the amounts transferred to his two accounts from the

accounts of complainant and his wife and the accounts of the co co

accused , as well as the following conditions:

(i) One of the sureties shall be a blood relation.

(ii) The petitioner should not tamper with prosecution evidence

or try to influence or threaten witnesses.

(iii) The petitioner shall not indulge in any criminal activity.

(iv) The petitioner shall provide the address in Bhubaneswar

where he intends to reside after his release and also provide the

details of his 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 the petitioner is released on bail.

(v) The petitioner shall provide his active mobile number(s) to

the learned trial Court, so that the same can be verified by the

I.O., before he is released on bail. Any change in the mobile

number(s) shall be immediately informed to the Court, by his

counsel within two days of the change.

(vi) The petitioner shall not leave the Bhubaneswar U.P.D.,

without permission of the learned trial Court.

(vii) The petitioner shall surrender his passport in the learned

trial Court. In case he does not possess a passport, he shall

submit affidavits to that effect.

(ix) The petitioner shall remain personally present in the learned

trial court on each date of trial and co-operate for early disposal

of the trial.