Orissa High Court
Akash Kumar Pathak vs State Of Orissa (Cid Cb) .... Opposite ... on 3 February, 2023
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.1523 of 2022
Akash Kumar Pathak .... Petitioner
Mr. Akshaya Kumar Sahoo, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Orissa (CID CB) .... Opposite Party
Mr. Sidharth Shankar Mohapatra, ASC
CORAM:
JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03.02.2023
1.Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is at the behest of the petitioner assailing the impugned order dated 13th April, 2022 passed in C.T. Case No.4053 of 2020 by the learned J.M.F.C., Bhubaneswar whereby an application filed by him seeking permission to leave the jurisdiction of the Court and to travel to Pune and Delhi was declined and rejected.
2. An FIR was lodged by the informant, namely, DGM (Ethics) of Tata Motor Ltd. before the CID(CB), Bhubaneswar, consequent upon which, CID Cyber Crime P.S. Case No.26 of 2020 was registered under Section 420 IPC and other allied offences was registered which corresponds to C.T. Case No.4053 of 2001. The chargesheet against the petitioner and others was finally submitted in the year 2022 under the alleged offences. The petitioner, who was in judicial custody, was released on bail by this Court's order dated 16th February, 2022 in BLAPL No.6494 of 2021. Thereafter, the petitioner moved the application before the learned State which was however denied vide Annexure-5. Aggrieved by such rejection, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the CRLMC No.1523 of 2022 Page 1 of 5 Akash Kumar Pathak Vrs. State of Orissa (CID CB) correctness and judicial prosperity of the impugned order under Annexure-5.
3. Heard Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the State-opposite party.
4. It is contended by Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was required to travel to Pune which is his native place to look after the landed property and to Delhi in order to collect certain documents necessary to defend a proceeding before the Adjudicating Authority under PMLA and for the said purpose, permission was sought for but the same was declined by the learned court below in a casual manner and also for the reason that the case is pending for framing of charge. It is submitted that such a move of the petitioner was opposed by the State on the ground that it was with malafide intention and to delay the criminal proceeding that the permission is applied for and as such there is no need for him to travel to Pune and Delhi and at a stage when charge is not yet framed.
5. The petitioner was released on bail with one of the conditions that he shall not leave the State without prior permission of the court below. A copy of the said bail order in BLAPL No.6494 dated 16th February, 2022 is at Annexure-2 series. The petitioner moved the learned court below by indicating in the application the reason and purpose for him to travel to Pune and Delhi and only for a period from 14th April, 2022 to 28th April, 2022 to look after his landed property and also in order to collect certain documents and also to engage an Advocate to appear before the Adjudicating Authority under PMLA at New Delhi. An affidavit dated 8th September, 2022 was filed by the petitioner disclosing the relevant facts for consideration of the Court and the purpose for him to travel outside the State.
CRLMC No.1523 of 2022 Page 2 of 5Akash Kumar Pathak Vrs. State of Orissa (CID CB)
6. The petitioner was released on bail with one of the conditions to leave the jurisdiction of the State after obtaining the court's permission. The aforesaid condition does mean that the petitioner can be allowed to leave the State where there is need or purpose which he may do so however with the orders of the court. The reason stated in the impugned order is that there was no need for the petitioner to travel to collect documents so as enable him to file it before the Adjudicating Authority, New Delhi without any order being produced and that too when, the show cause was already filed by him. Another reason assigned while denying permission is that the case is lingering at the stage of framing of charge and on an earlier occasion, a similar relief was considered and rejected by the court's order on 8th April, 2022.
7. In the considered view of the Court since such travel beyond the jurisdiction of the State is not prohibited but subject to permission, the ground upon which such request was received from the petitioner was required to be seriously examined by the learned court below which simply could not have denied on the ground that the case is pending at the stage of framing of charge and there may be further delay if the request is acceded to. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the contents of the affidavit dated 8th September, 2022 accompanied by other papers to suggest that he should have been allowed to leave the State for a temporary period for the reasons.
8. The ground upon which permission was rejected by the learned court below is unjustified so to say. Merely for the reason that the charge is to be framed and there may be further delay, if the petitioner is allowed to leave the State does not appear to be convincing. The presence of the petitioner could have been procured at the time of framing of charge. No apprehension was expressed by the court about the possibility of the petitioner's CRLMC No.1523 of 2022 Page 3 of 5 Akash Kumar Pathak Vrs. State of Orissa (CID CB) abscondance. Whether the case was pending at the stage of framing of charge and any delay whatsoever in that regard was attributed to the petitioner is not discernable from the rejection order. Nothing has been drawn to the attention of the Court with regard to violation of any of the conditions by the petitioner since his release on 17th February, 2022. The petitioner though a native of Pune but has roots in the society and therefore, there is also remote chance of his abscondance from the local limits of the court below. The request for living the State was moved in the year 2022 and at that point of time, it was declined. In the meantime, the charge must have been framed against the petitioner. If not framed yet, even then also, in anticipation of framing of charge, the petitioner cannot be denied the permission to leave the State in case any need and purpose is shown and satisfied. As earlier mentioned, for a specific and limited purpose, the petitioner had applied for the permission and it was only for duration of two weeks. It is reiterated that the petitioner since was required to travel to Pune and Delhi for the purposes indicated, notwithstanding the fact that the case was pending for framing of charge, the learned court below could have ensured it either before his travel or after his return to the State. To deny the permission on the ground so stated does not appear to be reasonable rather extremely harsh, moreover when, the petitioner does have a remote chance to avoid enquiry and trial. In such view of the matter, the Court is of the view that the impugned order under Annexure-5 is unjustified and hence liable to be interfered with.
9. Accordingly, it is ordered.
10. In the result, the CRLMC stands allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 13th April, 2022 passed in C.T. Case No.4053 of 2020 by the learned J.M.F.C., Bhubaneswar is hereby set aside. However regard being had to the fact that in the CRLMC No.1523 of 2022 Page 4 of 5 Akash Kumar Pathak Vrs. State of Orissa (CID CB) meantime, more than eight months have elapsed and the purposes for which the permission was sought for might no longer be the ground, the Court directs that in case any such fresh request is received from the petitioner, he shall be allowed to leave the State subject to conditions as would be fixed by the court below on an application moved by him stating the details of the purpose, stay and movement outside the State with the travel itinerary and such prayer shall be allowed for a specific period/duration without hampering the progress in the enquiry or trial, as the case may be.
(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge U.K. Sahoo CRLMC No.1523 of 2022 Page 5 of 5