[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Angel Mishra vs State Of Orissa ... Opposite Party on 9 April, 2026
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL NO.778 of 2026
(In the matter of application under Section 483 of
BNSS, 2023).
Angel Mishra ... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Orissa ... Opposite Party
For Petitioner : Mr. S.S. Pattnaik, Advocate
For Opposite Party : Mr. P. Satpathy, Addl. PP
CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:09.04.2026(ORAL)
G. Satapathy, J.
1. This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS
by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with
Tamando PS Case No.324 of 2024 corresponding to CT
Case No.760 of 2024 pending in the file of learned JMFC-
I, Bhubaneswar for commission of offences punishable
U/Ss.420/467/468/34 of IPC, on the main allegation of
cheating the informant for around Rs. 78 Lakhs by
forging documents on the pretext of delivering a Flat in
an Apartment.
2. Heard, Mr. Sumit Sekhar Pattnaik, learned
counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. P. Satpathy, learned
Addl. Public Prosecutor in the matter and perused the
record.
3. Bail to the Petitioner is in fact opposed to
by the learned Addl. PP not only on merit, but also for
the Petitioner having five criminal antecedents of similar
nature, however, the Petitioner is in custody since
10.03.2024 and in the meantime, more than two years
and three months have elapsed. Right now, the trial is
going on in the Court of learned JMFC(LR),
Bhubaneswar, but the Magistrate is empowered to inflict
maximum sentence of imprisonment for a term not
exceeding three years or of fine not exceeding Rs.
50,000/-. It is also not in dispute that the informant
while being examined as a witness in this case, has
admitted in cross-examination that he has filed one
cheque bounce case against the Petitioner for realization
of Rs. 78 Lakhs. One of the pleas of the Petitioner is for
grant of bail for non-conclusion of the trial even after
sixty days from the first date fixed for taking evidence in
terms of the provision of Sec. 480(6) of BNSS which
prescribes as under:-
"(6) If, in any case triable by a Magistrate, the
trial of a person accused of any non-bailable
offence is not concluded within a period of
sixty days from the first date fixed for taking
evidence in the case, such person shall, if he is
in custody during the whole of the said period,
be released on bail to the satisfaction of the
Magistrate, unless for reasons to be recorded
in writing, the Magistrate otherwise directs."
4. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner has in
fact approached the trial Court in an application U/S.
480(6) of BNSS, but the same was rejected by the
learned trial Court, however, on a bare perusal of the
said order, this Court does not find any reason ascribed
by the learned Magistrate for refusing bail to the
Petitioner in terms of the provision of Sec. 480(6) of
BNSS. In such situation, normally if the trial is not
concluded within sixty days from the first date fixed for
taking evidence, the accused person if he is in custody
shall be released on bail which in fact provides that the
bail although appears to be more mandatory than
discretionary, nonetheless it is not an absolute right of
such accused. No doubt, the Petitioner is having some
criminal antecedents, but confining an offender for
indefinite period on the expectation of conclusion of trial
on one day is not the spirit of Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
5. In this case, the Petitioner has not only suffered
incarceration period of two years and three months, but
also he is also facing trial in another case for cheque
bounce. It is also not out of place to mention that
criminal proceeding in the nature of the present case is
never meant for realization of disputed dues. Further, no
material has been produced to justify any apprehension
that the Petitioner would abscond or avoid the trial. In
view of the aforesaid facts and situation and taking into
account the materials so placed on record and keeping
in view the pre trial detention of the Petitioner in
custody and the offences being right now tried by
Magistrate who is only competent to impose
imprisonment up to three years and fine of Rs. 50,000/-,
this Court without expressing any view on merits admits
the Petitioner to bail.
6. Hence, the bail application of the petitioner
stands allowed and the petitioner is allowed to go on bail
on furnishing property surety of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees
Five Lakh), in addition to bail bonds of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh) only with two solvent sureties each
for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned
Court in seisin of the case on such terms and conditions
as deem fit and proper by it with following condition:-
(i) the petitioner in the course of trial shall
attend the trial Court on each date of posting
without fail unless his attendance is dispensed
with. In case the Petitioner fails without
sufficient cause to appear in the Court in
accordance with the terms of the bail, the
learned trial Court may proceed against the
Petitioner for offence U/S.269 of BNS in
accordance with law.
7. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules. A
soft copy of this order be immediately communicated to
the concerned Court, who shall afterwards communicate
the same to the concerned Jail through e-mail for
reference.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Reason: Authentication Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Dated
Date: 10-Apr-2026 11:56:51 the 9th day of April, 2026/Priyajit
