Orissa High Court
Ramesh Chandra Padhi vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 6 December, 2021
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.8167 of 2021
Ramesh Chandra Padhi .... Petitioner
Mr.A. Tripathy, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. P.K. Mohanty, Addl. Standing Counsel
Mr. S.K. Baral, Advocate for the Informant
CORAM:
JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
Order No. 06.12.2021 06. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel
for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
2. This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner for bail in connection with Keonjhar Town P.S. Case No.294 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1277 of 2021 pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Keonjhar on the grounds stated therein.
3. Perused the F.I.R. and the impugned order dated 16.09.2021.
4. Gone through the contents of the F.I.R.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in so far as the money said to have been received, it has been transferred by the victim to the account of the other accused, namely, Biswajit Panda and in any case, it was with regard to arranging Government project work and for that, payment of Rs.1.00 crore said to have been made. It is contended that in order to provide some Government related project, the amount was received by said accused and considering the nature of transaction and period Page 1 of 3 // 2 // of detention vis-à-vis the petitioner, he should be enlarged on bail with any conditions.
6. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, vehemently objected to the release of the petitioner on the ground that though the amount was transferred to the account of the other accused, but then, it was at his instance as a negotiator.
7. In the instant case, investigation is over, inasmuch as, the charge sheet was filed in the month of September, 2021. As per the allegation in the F.I.R., there was a negotiation between the parties and the other accused being a distributor, had acquaintance with the informant's brother and in that connection, the petitioner had participated as negotiator. Prima facie, from the materials on record, it is made to suggest that the informant's brother paid sum of Rs.50.00 lac and rest of amounts in installments after an agreement with the accused, namely, Biswajit Panda for providing a Government project but it did not materialize. The petitioner and other accused alleged to have avoided the informant and his brother, thereafter. The petitioner, in fact, persuaded the informant and his brother, who run a business in the name and style of 'Mouallet Online Service Pvt. Ltd.' to part with the money which was not refunded nor any project work was arranged by the accused, namely, Biswajit Panda. It is intimated to the Court by the learned counsel for the State that the account of said accused, namely, Biswajit Panda has been freezed, in the meantime. It is further made to suggest from the file of the office of Advocate General, Odisha that the accused, namely, Biswajit Panda has, in fact, entered into an agreement with the victim to refund the money, i.e. Rs.1.00 crore within six to seven months, as intimated by the IO. It is also revealed there from that the amount of money was, in fact, transferred to the bank account of the accused, namely, Biswajit Panda, who was known to the informant on Page 2 of 3 // 3 // account of previous business relationship and the role of the petitioner was primarily of a negotiator for the alleged transaction.
8. Having regard to the above facts, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and in view of the fact that the account of the other accused has already been freezed and apparently, the entire amount was received by the other accused, namely, Biswajit Panda and considering the limited role played by the petitioner and in absence of any material to show that certain amount was again transferred to his account, the Court is of the considered view that the petitioner should be released on bail with stringent conditions.
9. Hence, it is ordered.
10. In the result, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) with one solvent surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned court below with the conditions that he shall not be involved in any such similar criminal activities, while on bail; shall not terrorize the complainant and the victim, in any manner whatsoever; and shall attend the PS and report the IIC concerned once in a fortnight preferably on Sunday between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. for a period of next six months.
11. If in case any of the above conditions is/are violated, it shall entail cancellation of petitioner's bail forthwith.
12. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of.
13. An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge KC Bisoi Page 3 of 3 // 4 // Page 4 of 3