Allowed

Karna Pradhan v. State of Orissavig.

Orissa HC18 Jul 2018ABLAPL/20739/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Special Judge, Vigilance Bhubaneswar granted anticipatory bail in a subsequent application regarding alleged corruption offences. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court found the petitioner had substantially cooperated with the investigation, rendering further custodial interrogation unnecessary. Bail was granted subject to conditions and a bond.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail with a bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties for Rs.1,00,000/- each, subject to conditions of interrogation and non-interference.

Karna Pradhan Vs State of Orissavig. — Anticipatory Bail | Orissa HC (2018)

¶1

ABLAPL No. 20739 of 2017

¶2

Karna Pradhan ..... petitioner -Vrs.State (Vigilance) ..... Opp. party For petitioner: - Mr. V. Narasingh For State(Vig.): - Mr. Niranjan Moharana Addl. Standing Counsel

¶3

18.07.2018 Heard Mr. V. Narasingh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Niranjan Moharana, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department.

¶4

This is an application under section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with Bhubaneswar Vigilance P.S. Case No.60 of 2016 corresponding to V.G.R. Case No.114 of 2016(V) pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar for alleged commission of offences under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with section 109 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶5

Earlier the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner in ABLAPL No.19168 of 2016 was refused on 29.11.2017 basing on the submission made by the learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department that the custodial interrogation of petitioner is very much necessary and the petitioner has not cooperated fully with the investigation. Challenging such submission, this anticipatory bail application has been filed wherein it is urged that the petitioner was never called upon to join investigation and therefore, the question of non-

¶6

¶7

cooperation does not arise. It is further submitted that the petitioner has retired from the Government Service. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Madhya Pradesh –Vrs.- Kajad reported in (2001)7 Supreme Court Cases 673 , wherein it is held that successive bail applications are permissible under the changed circumstances but without the change in the circumstances, the second application would be deemed to be seeking review of the earlier judgment which is not permissible under criminal law as has been held by this Court in Hari Singh Mann -Vrs.- Harbhajan Singh Bajwa reported in (2001) 1 Supreme Court Cases 169 .

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court in case of Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth –Vrs.- State of Gujarat reported in (2016) 1 Supreme Court Cases 152 , it is held as follows:-

¶9

“25.3. It is imperative for the courts to carefully and with meticulous precision evaluate the facts of the case. The discretion to grant bail must be exercised on the basis of the available material and the facts of the particular case. In cases where the court is of the considered view that the accused has joined the investigation and he is fully cooperating with the investigating agency and is not likely to abscond, in that event, custodial interrogation should be avoided. A great ignominy, humiliation and disgrace is attached to arrest. Arrest leads to many serious consequences not only for the accused but for the entire family and at times for the entire community. Most people do not make any distinction between arrest at a pre-conviction stage or post-conviction stage.

¶10

¶11

25.4. There is no justification for reading into Section 438 Cr.P.C. the limitations mentioned in Section 437 Cr.P.C. The plentitude of Section 438 must be given its full play. There is no requirement that the accused must make out a “special case” for the exercise of the power to grant anticipatory bail. This virtually, reduces the salutary power conferred by Section 438 Cr.P.C. to a dead letter. A person seeking anticipatory bail is still a free man entitled to the presumption of innocence. He is willing to submit to restraints and conditions on his freedom, by the acceptance of conditions which the court may deem fit to impose, in consideration of the assurance that if arrested, he shall be enlarged on bail.”

¶12

It is the settled principle in law that no party can claim as of right to move a fresh application for anticipatory bail after dismissal of his previous application whether on merits or on dismissal as withdrawn. However, in an exceptional case, a successive anticipatory bail application can be entertained where the party is able to show that on erroneous submission of the Public Prosecutor either on factual aspect or on law, the earlier application was rejected or there is a substantial change in the fact situation after the rejection of earlier one for which nonconsideration of his application would result in miscarriage of justice.

¶13

Mr. Manoranjan Paikaray, Inspector Vigilance, Khurda Squad is present today in Court and he has produced his letter dated 18.07.2018 wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner has been appearing and cooperating in the investigation as and when required and that the petitioner has also submitted all the documents in

¶14

¶15

support of his case and he does not have any other documents to produce in favour of his case and that his custodial interrogation is not necessary and in the meantime the investigation has been substantially progressed.

¶16

Learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department submitted that in view of the present conduct of the petitioner, he has no serious objection to the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶17

Considering the submissions made by the respective parties, the conduct of the petitioner in cooperating with the investigation and producing relevant documents before the Investigating Officer and taking into account the progress of investigation and the fact that the custodial interrogation is not necessary and keeping in view the nature of accusation and the ratio laid down in case of Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth (supra), I am of the humble view that the petitioner has been able to make out an exceptional case for re-consideration and therefore, I am inclined to release the petitioner on anticipatory bail and accordingly, this Court directs that in the event of arrest of the petitioner in connection with the aforesaid case, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer with further conditions that he shall make himself available for interrogation by the I.O. as and when required and he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to

¶18

¶19

dissuade him from disclosing any facts to the Courts or to the Investigating Officer.

¶20

Violation of any of the above conditions shall entail cancellation of bail.

¶21

The ABLAPL is accordingly disposed of.

¶22

Urgent certified copy of this order is granted on proper application.

¶23

A free copy of this order be handed over to the learned Addl. Standing counsel for the Vigilance Department.

¶24