Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pratik Mohapatra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 May, 2017
MCRC-7307-2017
(PRATIK MOHAPATRA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
11-05-2017
Mr.Anil Khare, learned Senior Counsel with Mr.H.S.Chhabra
and Mr.Bhaskar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr.Arvind Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Mr.Siddharth Gupta, learned counsel with Mr.Amit Garg, learned counsel for the Objector.
This application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.136/2016 for offences under sections 419, 468 of IPC registered at Police Station-Cyber Cell, District-Bhopal. The case diary is not available. However, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that on earlier occasion also the case diary was not available when the case was listed on 4.5.2017. Today learned counsel for the applicant has pressed for orders on I.A.No.8492/2017, which is an application for grant of ad- interim bail pending disposal of the case. The case according to the prosecution is that the applicant and the complainant were course mates at the National Law Institution at Bhopal between the years 2005 to 2010. The complainant and the applicant are said to have been emotionally close to each other and there was also contemplation of marriage between the two. However, as so stated by learned counsel for the complainant, the applicant herein got a good placement immediately after completing his course and was gainfully employed with a law firm in New Delhi. Presently he is not employed with any law firm on account of the present case is pending against him, as so stated by learned counsel for the applicant. The complainant has stated that she did her LL.M. from the National Law University, Singapore and is more qualified then the applicant and was working at Singapore and that she was hoodwinked into leaving the job and coming to India by the applicant who promised her a better job in India. However, that never worked out and instead the applicant herein is alleged to have created fake E-mail ID's in the name of company called SSBT which is a Singapore based company and a client of the erstwhile law firm Platinum Partners with whom the applicant was working and through the said E-mails the applicant is alleged to have given the impression to the complainant that she has been appointed by the said company for which she was to be paid a salary which was not less than 5,500/- Singapore dollar in August, 2014.
Learned counsel for the Objector submits that the same worked out to about 2.64 lacks per month. Learned counsel for the Objector has submitted that the complainant worked for the said company and her remuneration was allegedly routed through the applicant's bank account.
Per contra, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant had transferred about 17,44,000/- Rupees in all between the period of 2014 to 2016 and, thereafter, it is further alleged by the complainant that the applicant herein had forged a letter allegedly issued by the UNHCR for which she is alleged to have done work but not received any remuneration. Learned counsel for the Objector has stated that she has suffered loss in terms of her career prospects as she had wasted two years of her time thinking that she was working for a company, when she was actually never employed by it. The documents which have been filed by the applicant especially the bank statement from page-76 to 115, prima-facie, reveals that large amounts of money were transferred by the applicant to the complainant. Learned counsel for the Objector has vehemently opposed the grant of ad-interim bail stating that it is a case requiring custodial interrogation as the laptop and I-Phone which belonging to the applicant have been seized from the complainant by the police, are password protected and, therefore, not amenable to scrutiny. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the laptop and the I-Phone of the applicant were seized from the complainant as they were forcibly taken away by the complainant and her family members, a charge which is strongly refuted by the learned counsel the Objector, who states that the said articles were handed over voluntarily by the applicant. The custodial interrogation is prayed for as until and unless the applicant cooperates with the police and gives the access code for scrutinizing the laptop and the mobile, the truth would never be uncovered. Per contra, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that as regards the investigation into the alleged fabricated appointment letters which are sent to the complainant through the fabricated E-mail ID's purportedly generated by the applicant herein, the same can be traced from the computer and the E-mail account of the complainant itself based upon IP addresses from which the said E-mail were sent which could be traced back to the source. Be that as it may, looking at the facts and circumstances of the case, the said application is allowed with certain conditions:-
1. The applicant shall not be arrested in the interregnum and if so arrested he shall be enlarged on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer;
2. He shall also join the investigation as and when he receives notice under section 160 of Cr.P.C. which shall be addressed to E-mail ID:-
[email protected] or sent SMS to mobile number 9999183307 and join investigation on the dates on which so required by the police. It shall not be a defence/excuse for the applicant to claim that he never received the said notice, if the police is able to show that the same were duly sent to the E-mail ID and mobile number of the applicant.
3. The applicant shall also fully cooperate with the police in the course of the investigation and place before the police all such material required by the police and the police also directed to ensure the fairness in the investigation and shall also take into the account, the material provided by the applicant in his defence and consider the same.
The police is given the liberty to move an appropriate application for cancellation of this order, in the event, the applicant does not respond to the notice issued to him or does not cooperate effectively as required by the police. While issuing the notice under section 160 of Cr.P.C. the police shall bear in mind that the applicant is a resident of Delhi and adequate time should be given to him to respond to the said notice and all the material which are produced by the complainant shall also be taken into account.
Learned counsel for the State is requested to ensure the availability of the case diary on the next date of hearing. A copy of this order may be given to the learned counsel for the State.
List this case on 20.06.2017.
C.C. as per rules.
(ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE rk.