Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Orissa High Court

Rajeev Mishra vs State Of Odisha And Another .... ... on 8 June, 2021

Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 ORI 161

Author: S. K. Panigrahi

Bench: S. K. Panigrahi

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                               BLAPL No.958 of 2021


            Rajeev Mishra                        ....           Petitioner
                                                Mr. G. M. Rath, Advocate
                                     -versus-
            State of Odisha and another         ....    Opposite Parties
                Mr. M. K. Mohanty, Additional Standing Counsel for State

            Mr. Sunil Mishra, Additional Standing Counsel for CT & GST

                       CORAM:
                       THE JUSTICE S. K. PANIGRAHI
Order No.                             ORDER
                                    08.06.2021

06. 1. Mr. G.M. Rath, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State and Mr. Sunil Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the CT & GST are present. Judgment prepared in separate sheets is delivered and pronounced in open Court in presence of learned counsels for the parties, and the order is passed accordingly as follows:-

2. Considering the nature and gravity of the accusation, the nature of supporting evidence, availability of prima facie case against the petitioner, coupled with the fact that a huge amount of public money has been misappropriated and also the fact that further investigation of the case is under progress and taking into account the apprehension of the petitioner in tampering with the evidence, in the larger interest of society, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
3. Accordingly, the bail application sans merit and hence stands rejected.

// 2 //

4. Before parting, it is clarified that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purposes of the present application and that the learned Trial Court seisin over the matter shall proceed with the case uninfluenced by the observations made hereinabove.

5. As the restrictions due to the COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a soft copy of this order available in the High Court's website or print out thereof at par with certified copy in the manner prescribed, vide Court's Notice No.4587, dated 25th March 2020.

(S. K. Panigrahi) Judge AKK/AKP Page 2 of 2