Orissa High Court
Saroj Mohanty vs State Of Odisha …. Opposite Party(S) on 22 January, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.10298 of 2024
Saroj Mohanty .... Petitioner(s)
Mr. B. K. Ragada, Advocate
on behalf of Mr. D. K. Panda, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party(s)
Mr. S. Panda, ASC
Mr. J. P. Patra, Advocate for the Informant
CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
ORDER
22.01.2025
Order No.
09. 1. This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
2. The petitioner is an accused in connection with EOW
Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No.4 of 2024 corresponding to C.T. Case
No.15 of 2024 registered for the alleged commission of the
offences under Sections 408/467/468/471/120-B of I.P.C. pending
in the Court of the learned P.O., designated Court under the OPID
Act, Cuttack. The petitioner had approached before the learned
Court below praying for grant of bail. The learned Court below vide
its order dated 28.09.2024 has rejected the bail application of the
Page 1 of 5
petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present
petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. praying for enlargement on bail.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner on instruction from the
petitioner, submits that, except the present bail application, no other
bail application of the petitioner is pending in any other Court
relating to the aforesaid F.I.R.
4. The prosecution case in short is that, the accused-petitioner
was working as an Accountant in the office of M/s. Sealcoat
Structural Works Private Limited whereas the informant was the
Managing Director of the said company. The petitioner was
working in the said company since the year 2007. The aim and
object of the company is to construct roads repairing of bridge and
building as well as distributor of some multinational company and
the nature of job of the accused-petitioner was to look after all
related bank transactions, tax matters i.e. income tax, sales tax,
service tax, finalization of balance sheet and profit and loss of the
accounts with Chartered Accountant and was taking decisions
solely regarding all financial transactions.. It is alleged that during
the financial years 2015-16 to 2017-18, the petitioner has
misappropriated a sum of Rs.2,63,09,860/- by forging the
informant’s signatures and by making double transactions with
Page 2 of 5
regard to the NEFT/RTGS by manipulating authorization letters
and the cheque issued to bank towards payment to his accounts or
his relatives accounts. Hence, the F.I.R.
5. After investigation, preliminary charge-sheet has been
filed on 03.09.2024. Perusal of the charge-sheet, reveals that there
is a direct transaction of Rs.18,27,540/-in the account of the present
petitioner. Although the allegations in the F.I.R. is regarding the
misappropriation of funds amounting to Rs.2,35,02,835/- but the
investigation reveals that there is direct transfer of amount from the
company account to the petitioner’s account to the tune of Rs.18,
27,540/-.
6. Mr. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioner on
instruction from his client makes an offer to deposit Rs.3,00,000/-
(Rupees three lakhs) to begin with and submits that the petitioner
may be enlarged on bail on depositing Rs.3,00,000/- and his client
would make all endeavor to see that the entire defrauded amount is
refunded by him in due course.
7. Mr. Patra, learned counsel for the Informant vehemently
opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and submitted that the
defrauded amount is very huge and the offer to deposit
Rs.3,00,000/- by the petitioner is meagre amount. The company has
Page 3 of 5
faced huge loss at the instance of the petitioner. Hence, he is not
entitled to bail.
8. Regard being had to the period of custody from 09.05.2024
and the petitioner is facing the charges for the offence punishable
under Sections 408/467/468/471/120-B of I.P.C., I am inclined to
admit the petitioner on bail, subject to the petitioner depositing
Rs.3,00,000/- before the Court below as has been offered by Mr.
Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioner without prejudice to the
rights and contentions of the parties.
Hence, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail by
the Court in seisin over the matter in the aforesaid case on such
terms and conditions as it would deem just and proper, subject to
the following additional conditions:-
(i) Since preliminary charge-sheet has been submitted and the
investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. is open,
the petitioner shall appear before the I.O. of the present
case regularly as and when he is called for so that the
investigation is concluded.
(ii) He shall appear before the trial Court on each date on
which the case is posted for trial.
Page 4 of 5
(iii) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court till
disposal of the trial.
(iv) He shall not tamper with the evidence in any manner
whatsoever.
Violation of any of the conditions shall entail consideration
for cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioners. In the event,
any of the bail conditions are violated by the petitioners, the
prosecution is given liberty to move appropriate application before
the Court below for recalling the concession of bail. If such
application is moved, the trial Court should decide the application
on its own merit.
9. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
Swarna
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SWARNAPRAVA DASH
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 23-Jan-2025 11:27:45
Page 5 of 5