Orissa High Court
Nihar Ranjan Das vs State Of Odisha (Vig.) .... Opposite ... on 23 December, 2022
Author: V. Narasingh
Bench: V. Narasingh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No. 11126 of 2022
Nihar Ranjan Das .... Petitioner
Mr. M. Kanungo, Sr. Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha (Vig.) .... Opposite Party
Mr. S.K. Das,
Sr. Standing Counsel (Vigilance)
Mrs. J. R. Tripathy,
Standing Counsel (Vigilance)
CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
ORDER
23.12.2022 Order No.
03. 1. Heard Mr. Kanungo, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.K. Das, learned senior Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department assisted by Mrs. J.R. Tripathy.
2. The petitioner is an accused in VGR Case No.39 of 2022, pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar, arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No.35 of 2022, for commission of alleged offences under Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(b) and 12 of the P.C. Act.
3. Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for bail U/s.439 Cr.P.C. by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar by order dated 04.11.2022 in the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed.
Page 1 of 34. It is submitted by Mr. Kanungo, learned senior counsel that the petitioner is in custody since 28.10.2022 and as investigation has progressed substantially, he may be released on bail.
5. Mr. Das, learned senior Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department submits that the case has been registered against the petitioner and his wife for alleged possession of disproportionate asset to the tune of Rs.3,96,21,832.00 against their all known sources of income. Taking into account the nature of investment, as made by the petitioner, inter alia, allegedly in crypto currencies his release at this stage would not only impair the further investigation but also derail the same.
It is stated that because of the very nature of the allegations, it would be almost impossible to keep a tab on the petitioner and it will not be possible to stop him or others at his behest from accessing and manoeuvring the crypto currency. Hence he opposes the prayer for bail.
6. Per contra, the learned senior counsel Mr. Kanungo submits that to allay the apprehension of the learned senior Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department, the petitioner can be put to terms.
7. Perused the instructions, submitted on behalf of the Vigilance Department.
8. Taking into account that the petitioner is in custody since 28.10.2022 and the investigation has progressed substantially and primarily it is based on documentary and electronic evidence, this Court is persuaded to hold that further continuance of the petitioner in custody is not warranted.
9. Hence, it is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail on such terms to be fixed by the learned Court in seisin.
10. It is further directed that till the submission of final form, the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of Court in seisin.
Page 2 of 311. Additionally, it is directed that neither the petitioner nor any of his family members shall in any way and in any manner try to access the 88 crypto wallets (Platin Coin-PLC/PLC Ultima-PLCU) which have so far come to the fore and any others which may come to light during the course of ongoing investigation. The petitioner shall ensure that he and all his family members shall provide their respective exchange wallet ID, crypto wallet ID, exchange deposit ID, user name and password. Needless to state that this list is not exhaustive but is an expression of intent of the Court to allay the legitimate apprehension of the counsel for the Vigilance qua the crypto currency.
Any violation shall entail cancellation without any further reference to this Court.
12. It shall be open to the Investigating Agency to seek any other security, it goes without saying, in accordance with law to ensure effective investigation particularly in respect of alleged investments in crypto or any other virtual currency.
13. It is needless to state that the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and it shall be open to the alleged Investigation Agency to seek variance of the order, if the petitioner does not render the desired cooperation.
14. The bail application accordingly stands disposed of.
15. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per the rules.
(V. NARASINGH) Judge Santoshi Page 3 of 3