Allowed

Nirmala Behera v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC19 Apr 2019ABLAPL/670/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in a case involving alleged offences of cheating and forgery. Finding no material suggesting the petitioner was responsible for the fraud and noting she may be a victim, the Court held custodial interrogation unnecessary and permitted release, subject to cooperation with investigation and an exclusion clause for graver offences.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on pre-arrest bail; directing Arresting Officer to release on bail on appropriate terms including cooperation with investigation, unless graver offence found.

Nirmala Behera Vs State of Odisha — Cheating and Forgery | Orissa HC (2019)

¶1

ABLAPL No.670 of 2019

¶2

19.04.2019

¶3

The petitioner in this case having been implicated in Mancheswar P.S. Case No.592 of 2018 corresponding to CT Case No.5734 of 2018, pending in the court of the learned SDJM, Bhubaneswar for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 420/468/506/294/34 of IPC has filed this petition for her release on pre-arrest bail.

¶4

Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State, so also the learned counsel for the informant.

¶5

As it appears, the land belonging to the informant was stated to be fraudulently transferred to one Subrat Kumar Das in the year 1987 by executing a fraudulent saledeed by impersonation of true owner. The said Subrat Kumar Das subsequently, transferred the same to the present petitioner-Nirmala Behera through his attorney holder namely, Luckey Mohanty. In the said power of attorney, the husband of the present petitioner was witness. As such, the petitioner along with Subrat Kumar Das have been indicted in the aforesaid case. Hence, the present petitioner apprehending her arrest, has filed this petition for release on pre-arrest bail.

¶6

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was no way responsible for such fraudulent transfer. No material is also there that the petitioner was any way responsible for any fraudulent transfer of property to Subrat Kumar Das. The petitioner in good faith purchased the land and as such, for such fraudulent execution of sale-deed in favour of Subrat Kumar

¶7

¶8

Das, even if the petitioner could not have been indicted in this case especially when the petitioner is a victim in this case. In such premises, it is submitted that the petitioner be released on pre-arrest bail.

¶9

Learned counsel for the informant submits that since the husband of the petitioner is the witness of the power of attorney executed by one Subrat Kumar Das, and such land was transferred to the present petitioner. However, no material has been brought to the notice that in fraudulent transfer of land to Subrat Kumar Das, which subsequently transferred to the present petitioner, the petitioner was a party.

¶10

Learned counsel for the State also could not produce such materials.

¶11

Therefore, regard being had to the nature of accusations, character of evidence appearing against the petitioner, circumstances in which the alleged offences stated to have committed and also the fact that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not essential for investigation of the case coupled with the fact that the petitioner at large shall not make any hindrance to the investigation and collection of materials, this Court is of the view that the petitioner in this case deserves to be released on pre-arrest bail, more so when this Court feels that the petitioner has hardly any chance of abscondance, if released on pre-arrest bail.

¶12

Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner for prearrest bail is allowed with a direction that in the event of arrest of the petitioner in connection with the aforesaid case,

¶13

¶14

she be released on bail by the Arresting Officer on such terms and conditions as he may deem just and proper including the condition that petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation.

¶15

However, it is made clear that if any graver offence is found against the petitioner in this case besides the aforesaid offences, this order shall not be given effect to.

¶16

The ABLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶17

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

¶18

S.Pujahari, J.

¶19

RKS

Nirmala Behera v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirmala Behera 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

Digambar Kamudi@Dillip Vs State of Odisha

Kanha@Anil Ku. Ghadei Vs State of Odisha

Bachan Jhankar Vs State of Odisha

Om Prakash Gupta Vs State of Odisha

Ranjit Lima Vs State of Odisha(Vig.)

Dasarathi Parida Vs State of Odisha