Orissa High Court
Pradip Kumar Pradhan & Others vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 30 April, 2024
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ABLAPL No.3720 of 2024
Pradip Kumar Pradhan & Others .... Petitioners
Mr. Prakash Kumar Mishra, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. Manoj Kumar Mohanty,
Addl. Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
ORDER
Order No. 30.04.2024
01. 1. Heard Mr. P.K. Mishra learned counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.
2. By means of this application, the Petitioners seek grant of anticipatory bail U/s. 438 of Cr.P.C. in apprehension of arrest for their alleged involvement in the offence under Sections 419/420/465/468/469/471/505(1)(a)(b)/34 of the IPC read with Sections 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 in connection with Sahidnagar P.S. Case No.193/2024 corresponding to C.T. Case No.402/2024 pending in the Court of the learned JMFC-III, Bhubaneswar.
3. The case record reveals that, on April 1, 2024, one Bhagaban Panigrahi, serving as Reserve Inspector of Police in the Urban Police District, Bhubaneswar, lodged an FIR stemmed from his awareness of a news broadcast on OTV on March 29, 2024. During Page 1 of 8 this broadcast, the present petitioners held a press conference regarding the deployment of police personnel for VIP security. At the press conference, they showcased certain papers and documents to the media, claiming to have obtained them under the RTI Act. Upon enquiry it was discovered that these documents, which were widely circulated in the media, were neither prepared by the concerned authority nor distributed to any individual. Consequently, it is alleged that these documents are forged, containing fabricated content that was manufactured by the petitioners with an ulterior motive. Their dissemination resulted in widespread circulation on social media platforms.
4. The learned counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. Mishra submits that Petitioner No.2, an RTI activist, submitted a request for information under Section 6 of the RTI Act on January 19, 2024, to the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Department of Home, Government of Odisha. The information sought was regarding the total number of personnel and vehicles engaged for the security of Mr. V.K. Pandian, Chairman of 5T and Nabin Odisha. Upon receipt of the application (Annexure-2), the Deputy Secretary to the Government, acting as the PIO, forwarded it to the PIO at the Commissioner of Police office in Bhubaneswar on January 25, 2024 (Letter No. HOME-RTI-RTI-0039/2024/ RTI Cell 3135).
5. According to Mr. Mishra, the PIO at the Commissioner of Police office then transferred the application to the PIO at the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Bhubaneswar UPD, citing Section 6(3) of the RTI Act. This transfer was communicated to Petitioner No. 2 through Memo No. 485/CP(RTI) dated January 5, 2024, although Page 2 of 8 the letter itself was signed on February 5, 2024. Subsequently, the PIO at the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Bhubaneswar UPD, further transferred the application to the PIO at the Reserve Inspector of Police, Bhubaneswar UPD, and to the PIO at the DCP Security, S.S.B.N., Bhubaneswar UPD, requesting them to provide the necessary information. Copies of these letters were forwarded to Petitioner No. 2. In response to these directives, the PIO at the DCP (Security) Office provided partial information to Petitioner No. 2 on February 23, 2024, vide letter No. 369/CP-SSBN dated February 23, 2024. Similarly, the PIO, i.e. the Reserve Inspector of Police, Bhubaneswar UPD, provided information to Petitioner No.2 on March 11, 2024, albeit without specifying a letter number and date, except a date under the signature. Following the receipt of this information (Annexure - 6 & 7), the petitioners, who are RTI activists, held a press conference on March 29, 2024, and disseminated the information to the public through a press conference. Despite the press conference being televised on OTV, the Informant lodged a false FIR three days later, seemingly to address his failure to include a letter number & date in Annexure-7.
6. Mr. Mishra further submitted that filing of a false FIR against the petitioners appears to be a retaliatory measure, aimed at intimidating and harassing them for their legitimate actions, rather than addressing any genuine wrongdoing. Furthermore, the FIR lacks substantive evidence to support the allegations of forgery and cheating against the petitioners and there is no indication that the petitioners manipulated or falsified the documents obtained through Page 3 of 8 the RTI request. Instead, it seems to be a malicious attempt to discredit and incriminate the petitioners, particularly given the timing of the FIR, which coincided with the petitioners' press conference.
7. Mr. Manoj Mohanty, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State, vehemently opposed the case of the Petitioners. He submits that the information was supposed to be shared through post as applied for by the applicant, whereas there is no material prima facie to show that information have been shared through post. According to Mr. Mohanty, the so-called information shared under RTI Act does not even bear the official letter number or reference number and date which apparently has been signed by the PIO-cum-RI and that there is no such information either prepared, provided officially or otherwise.
8. Mr. Mohanty further submits that the information allegedly shared is a forged one, and such conduct of the Petitioners prima facie cannot be denied keeping in view the fact that the petitioners are having several criminal antecedents including the offences under sections 468, 471 IPC and are habitual to forging documents detrimental to the interests of the public at large. He also contended that, if the Petitioner had received the information by hand, he ought to have acknowledged in token of receipt of the letter in the official register. Mr. Mohanty has placed the original official registers prima facie to establish that there was no information sent officially from the authorities even by hand. According to Mr. Mohanty, presuming that the letter has been received by the Petitioner, it must have been reflected in the office register through which the official letters are Page 4 of 8 sent by assigning a number to the letter, whereas Annexure-7 does not bear any Memo number or date. Rather the PIO has communicated the letter to the applicant only vide Letter No.13/RO (RTI) dated 01.04.2024 explaining the reason why such information cannot be shared under the relevant provision.
9. Having heard the learned counsels for the respective parties and perusal of the documents, this court acknowledges the seriousness of the allegations leveled against the petitioners, with respect to forging of documents and misrepresenting information allegedly obtained under the RTI Act. It becomes evident that the information provided in Annexure-7, which the petitioners claim to have received under the RTI Act, lacks authenticity. The absence of a Memo number or letter number, which is the standard requirements for any official government correspondence, raises doubts about the legitimacy of the document. Furthermore, there is a lack of corroborating material from the petitioners to demonstrate that the information was received either through post or by hand that further undermine its credibility. Absence of such credence attached to the documents prima facie loses its authenticity and reliability as to have been received under the RTI Act. Additionally, the official register presented by the learned counsel for the State serves as prima facie evidence. Absence of any entry especially on the specified dates indicating the sending out of the information sought by the petitioners and/or acknowledgement as to receipt of such a letter personally by hand reinforces the allegations that no such information was officially dispatched by the authorities. Again, absence of any further explanation and corroborating material from Page 5 of 8 the side of the Petitioners casts serious doubt on the petitioners' assertions, but supports Mr. Mohanty's contention that the information purportedly shared under the RTI Act is fabricated.
10. Furthermore, as placed by the learned counsel for the State, the present Petitioners are having several criminal antecedents to their credit. With respect to Petitioner No.1, Pradip Kumar Pradhan, there are 9 antecedents, i.e. Kharavelnagar P.S. Case No.44 dtd. 03.02.2018 u/s 228(A)/306/509/120(B) IPC read with Sec.3/4/6 of Indecent Representation of Women Act; Chandrasekharpur PS Case No. 479 dtd. 29.10.2017 U/s 500/509/120(B)/34 IPC/ Sec.67 of the IT Act; Mahila PS Case No.106 dtd. 01.09.2021 U/s 292(2)/354(A)/ 385/506/509/120(B) IPC read with Sec.3/4/6 of Indecent Representation of Women Act; Mahila PS Case No.107 dtd. 05.09.2021 U/s 294/323/341/354/ 354(A)/420/506/120(B)/34 IPC read with Sec. 3(1)/3(2v) of SC & ST (POA) Act; Capital PS Case No.566 dtd. 22.09.2023 U/s.143/147/341/427/353/332/294/354/ 506/149 IPC / Sec.96 of OUP Act/ 3 of PDPP Act/ Sec.7 of Crl. Law Amendment Act.; Capital PS Case No. 646 dtd. 02.11.2023 U/s 406/420/468/471/294/506/34 IPC/ Sec.31 of Representation of Peoples Act; Capital PS Case No. 491 dtd. 26.11.2015 U/s 147/149/ 294/323/332/341/353 IPC / Sec.7 of Crl. Law Amendment Act/ Sec.96 of OUP Act; Capital PS Case No.78 dtd. 20.02.2024 U/s 143/149/294/323/353/506 IPC/ Sec.96 of OUP Act; Capital PS Case No. 552 dtd. 14.12.2020 U/s 143/149/269/270/332/353 IPC/ Sec.3 of E.D. Act/ Sec.96 of OUP Act.
Page 6 of 811. With respect to Petitioner No.2, Prakash Chandra Das, there is one criminal antecedent, i.e. Marshaghai PS Case No. 211 dtd. 03.09.2020 U/s 341/294/323/506/34, IPC.
12. With respect to Petitioner No.3, Srikanta Pakal, there are 3 criminal antecedents, i.e. Choudwar PS Case No. 519 dtd. 30.11.2021 U/s 143/149/283/341/431 IPC / Sec.32 of Urban Police Act/ Sec.96 of Urban Police Act; Capital PS Case No.60 dtd. 16.02.2018 U/s. 143/149/328/353 IPC; Balipatna PS Case No.88 dtd. 31.03.2021 U/s. 294/323/341/ 354/420/506, IPC/ Sec. 3(2)(va) of SC & ST (POA) Act.
13. Keeping in view the submissions and discussions made as above, this Court acknowledges the weight of the allegations against the petitioners, which prima facie establishes the accusations of forgery and misrepresentation of information obtained through the RTI Act. The actions alleged not only violate the sanctity of the RTI Act but also erode public trust and reliance on the work conducted by RTI activists of promoting transparency, accountability, and citizen participation in governance. It suggests a deliberate attempt to deceive and manipulate the legal process for personal gain, thereby undermining the principles of transparency, accountability and the democratic governance. The conduct exhibited as alleged against the petitioners threatens to subvert the above principles. It amounts to compromising the integrity of the RTI mechanism and jeopardized the public confidence in government institutions.
14. In the above premises, grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners would not serve the interests of justice, as there exists Page 7 of 8 substantial material suggesting their involvement in grave misconduct under the alleged offences. The prayer for anticipatory bail therefore stands rejected and the ABLAPL is dismissed.
(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge S.K. Parida Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SAMIR KUMAR PARIDA Designation: ADR-cum-ADDL. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY Reason: Authentic Copy Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 01-May-2024 16:35:31 Page 8 of 8