Orissa High Court
Santosh Kumar Rath vs State Of Orissa (Opid) … Opposite … on 20 January, 2025
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.7839 of 2024
Santosh Kumar Rath ... Petitioner
Mr. A.S. Paul, Advocate
-versus-
State of Orissa (OPID) ... Opposite Party
Mr. J.P. Patra, Advocate (OPID)
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
ORDER(ORAL)
Order No. 20.01.2025 09. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).
2. This is a bail application U/S.439 of Cr.P.C. by
the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with
Bhubaneswar EOW P.S. Case No.17 of 2023
corresponding to C.T. Case No.4 of 2023 pending in
the file of learned Designated Court under OPID Act,
Cuttack, for commission of offences punishable
U/s.406/420/476/468/471/120-B of I.P.C. read with
Section 6 of OPID Act, on the allegation of cheating
gullible investors by taking deposits on the assurance
of providing flats.
3. In course of hearing, Mr. Amlan Shakti Paul,
learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this is
a second bail application of the petitioner, but no bail
application is pending before any other forum. Mr. Paul
further submits that present Petitioner is an employee
Page 1 of 3
of the company M/s. Mishra Creation Private Limited at
Chandaka, which has launched one Housing Project in
the name and style UTOPIA Housing Project, he there
being has no role in defrauding money from the
different customers on the assurance for providing
flats and he being the Marketing Manager of the
Company had only role in promoting business by
arranging customers for the Company. Further Mr.
Paul by relying upon the affidavit stated to be sworn in
by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Economic
Offences Wing filed in BLAPL No.8729 of 2023 submits
that the present Petitioner was the Marketing Manager
in Mishra Creation Private Limited since 2015, but the
said Company had floated a housing scheme called
UTOPIA Housing Project and only an amount of
Rs.19,10,000/- has been transacted in the account of
the Petitioner and his wife, but the petitioner having
been detained in custody for more than one and half
year without proper progress in trial, may kindly be
enlarged on bail.
3.1. On the other hand, Mr. J.P. Patra,
learned Counsel appearing on behalf of OPID,
however, vehemently argues that not only the present
Petitioner was the Additional Director of the Company,
but also had got sufficient role in cheating different
gullible investors who have lost their valuable property
in the form of cash and the fraud being to the tune of
Rs.13 crore and co-accused having not apprehended
Page 2 of 6
after securing interim bail, the present Petitioner’s bail
should not be considered liberally. It is further
submitted by Mr. Patra that not only the present
Petitioner is an Additional Director of M/s. Mishra
Creation Private Limited w.e.f. 23.12.2021, but also
there is a prima facie case against the Petitioner for
cheating gullible investors and not a single flat out of
148 nos. as assured to be provided to the investors
having handed over, the present bail application of the
Petitioner may kindly be rejected.
4. It is not disputed that the present petitioner
has been detained in custody since 20.07.2023, but in
the meanwhile, only one out of 44 charge-sheeted
witnesses has been examined. In the present scenario,
as to when the trial would be concluded is still a
guess, but the trial of the case has also lingered for
want of execution of NBW against co-accused Jyoti
Ranjan Mishra against whom NBW was issued on
31.10.2024. Further, the learned Trial Court in its
report has stated that the trial would take prolong
time. It is also not in dispute that the Additional
Superintendent of Police Economic Offences Wing in
his affidavit filed in BLAPL No.8729 of 2023 has stated
the following in paragraph-9:-
“9.That, an amount of Rs.14,00,000/- has been
transferred to the account of Santosh Kumar
Rath (Petitioner) and Sugyani Manjari Rath to
their joint account vide A/C.No.31853824370
maintained at State Bank of India, IMMT Branch,
Page 3 of 6
Bhubaneswar. Likewise, an amount of
Rs.5,10,000/- has been transferred from the
account of M/s.Mishra Creations Pvt. Ltd. To the
account of Santosh Kumar Rath (Petitioner) vide
his account number 30345592434. So, till date
an amount of Rs.19,10,000/- has been
transferred to the account of Petitioner Santosh
Kumar Rath and his wife Sugyani Manjari Rath
from the account of M/s. Mishra Creations Pvt.
Ltd.”
5. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances as well as when the trial would be
concluded is not known and considerable time is likely
to be required for disposal of the case and taking into
account the period of custody of the petitioner since
20.07.2023 and regard being had to the fact that the
principal accused is yet to be apprehended after
securing interim bail, this Court notwithstanding to the
serious objection as advanced by the learned Counsel
for the Opposite Party and without expressing any
view on merit considers it in favour of the personal
liberty of the Petitioner to grant him bail.
6. Accordingly, the bail application of the
petitioner stands allowed and the petitioner is allowed
to go on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.2,00,000/-
(Rupees Two Lakh) only with two local 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
conditions:-
Page 4 of 6
(i) the petitioner shall not commit any offence while
on bail and
(ii) 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.229-A of IPC in accordance with law,
(iii) the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of
the trial Court without prior permission till disposal
of the case by giving his present address of stay,
(iv) the petitioner shall inform the Court as well
as the IO as to his place of residence during the
trial by providing his mobile number(s),
residential address, e-mail, if any, and other
documents in support of proof of his residence,
(v) in case the petitioner misuses the liberty of bail
and in order to secure his presence, proclamation
U/S.82 of Cr.P.C. is issued and the petitioner fails to
appear before the Court on the date fixed in such
proclamation, then, the learned trial Court is at
liberty to initiate proceeding against him for offence
U/S.174-A of the IPC in accordance with law and
(vi) the petitioner shall appear before the IO as
and when required and shall cooperate with the
further investigation in the present case.
(vii) the petitioner shall surrender his Passport, if
any, in the Court in seisin of the case till
conclusion of trial, unless he is permitted to take
back such Passport to use for specific purpose
during the pendency of case.
It is clarified that the Court in seisin of the
case will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the
petitioner without further reference to this Court, if
any of the above conditions are violated or a case for
Page 5 of 6
cancellation of bail is otherwise made out. In the wake
of aforesaid, the subsequent involvement of the
petitioner in future for grave/similar type of offences
on prima facie accusations may be treated as a ground
for cancellation of bail in this case.
7. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.
8. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per
Rules.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Narayan
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: NARAYAN HO
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 21-Jan-2025 11:57:47
Page 6 of 6
[ad_1]
Source link