Allowed

Jajati Pattanaik v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC22 Nov 2019ABLAPL/269/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed joint pre-arrest bail petitions filed by petitioners in a suspected cheating case involving a failed land sale and disputed payment. The court observed that the offence appeared to be a civil liability and the petitioners had shown willingness to cooperate while having no chance of absconding.

What did the court decide?

Directing the arresting officer to release the petitioners on bail on such terms and conditions as deemed just and proper.

Jajati Pattanaik Vs State of Odisha — Cheating and Forgery | Orissa HC (2019)

¶1

ABLAPL NO.269 OF 2019

¶2

ABLAPL Nos. 269 & 287 OF 2019

¶3

08 22.11.2019 Both the petitions having arisen out of the same PS Case and heard together, the same are disposed of by this common order on consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶4

The petitioners apprehending their arrest in Badagad P.S. Case No.337 of 2018 corresponding to C.T. Case No.5441 of 2018 pending in court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar registered for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 420/468/471/34 of I.P.C. have filed these petitions for their release on pre-arrest bail.

¶5

Heard, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the informant, so also learned counsel for the State.

¶6

The allegation of the prosecution is that the petitioners are the maternal uncle and nephew of the informant. The petitioner in ABLAPL No. 287 of 2019 entered into an agreement to sell a plot, which was allotted to him by Bhubaneswar Development Authority (‘BDA’ in short), to the informant for a consideration of Rs.75,00,000/- and took Rs.20,00,000/- in advance from the informant to transfer a piece of land. Rs.10,00,000/- was taken by the petitioner in ABLAPL No. 287 of 2019 towards transfer of the land and Rs. 10,00,000/- by the petitioner in ABLAPL No. 269 of 2019 In such premises, when the informant approached the petitioners to return back his money, he was threatened with dire consequence for which the petitioners filed a complaint case in the court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar alleging the offences under Sections 420/ 468/471/34 of I.P.C., which was sent under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. by the

¶7

¶8

learned Magistrate and the case was registered.

¶9

Learned counsel for the informant submits that no doubt in the meanwhile Rs.10,000,00/- have been received by the informant but another Rs.10,000,00/- have not been paid by the petitioners, hence, they do not deserve to be released on bail.

¶10

However, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the land could not be transferred as the wife of the informant was having a plot from BDA and as such permission was not granted. Out of Rs.10,00,000/- received towards consideration amount has been returned. The rest of the amount was given for construction of boundary wall and as such in this case there being no elements of any cheating from the inception, the complaint was misconceived. Be that as it may, since the petitioners had no intention to cheat and transfer of the land cannot be made, due to the aforesaid reason and the money paid by the petitioners, if there was failure, the same is purely civil liability. In such premises when the petitioners have returned Rs.10,00,000/- and have no chance of absconding and/or tampering with the investigation, if released on pre-arrest bail. They deserve to be released on bail, submits learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶11

lnb

¶12

Considering the aforesaid facts and submissions made and especially the amount of Rs.10,00,000/-(ten lakhs) has been paid by one of the petitioners to the informant, circumstances in which offences stated to have been committed, and also it being not disputed that the petitioners’ release on pre-arrest bail shall not be an hindrance to the free and fair investigation, this Court is of

¶13

¶14

the view that the petitioners have made out a case for their release on pre-arrest bail, more particularly, when they are ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and they have no chance of absconding and/or tampering with the prosecution evidence, if released on pre-arrest bail.

¶15

lnb

¶16

Hence, this Court directs that in the event of arrest of the petitioners in connection with the aforesaid case, they be released on bail by the Officer effecting arrest on such terms and conditions as deemed just and proper including the condition that the petitioners shall not preclude the informant to ventilate his grievance in appropriate forum to release the amount which is due in accordance with law.

¶17

It is made clear that an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- paid is without prejudice to the claim of the informant and also the defence of the petitioners.

¶18

The ABLAPLs are, accordingly, disposed of being allowed.

¶19

Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.

¶20

…………………… S.Pujahari, J.

lnb

lnb

lnb

lnb

lnb

lnb

lnb

lnb

Lis

Jajati Pattanaik v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jajati Pattanaik v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh Kumar Pati Vs State of Odisha

Santosh Kumar Khatua Vs State of Odisha(Vig.)

Santosh Kumar Khatua Vs State of Odisha(Vig.)

Bijay Kumar Ray Vs State of Odisha

Geetanjali Pal Vs State of Odisha

Manoj Paikray@Manua Vs State of Odisha