Dismissed

Avinash Tripathy v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC14 Mar 2019BLAPL/1065/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa dismissed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The Court rejected the petitioner's contention that allegations were false and noted the victim's willingness to depose against him as opposed to his claim of pursuit. Considering the prima facie case, pending investigation, and risk of tampering with evidence, the Court refused bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail application was dismissed.

Avinash Tripathy Vs State of Odisha — Bail and Remand | Orissa HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK

¶2

BLAPL NO. 1065 OF 2019

¶3

An application under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Lalbag P.S. Case No.112 of 2018 which corresponds to G.R. Case No.1386 of 2018 Pending in the Court learned S.D.J.M. (Sadar), Cuttack.

¶4

------------------------ Avinash Tripathy …..…	---- Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Odisha …….	Opp. Party
For Petitioner: -	Mr. Srinivas Mohanty Kabita Patra Satya Pradhan
For Informant: -	Mr. Sangram Ku. Das Bini Mishra B.N. Mohapatra
For State of Odisha: - ---------------------------	Mr. Purna Chandra Das Addl. Standing Counsel ----

¶5

P R E S E N T:

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO

¶7

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Date of Argument: 13.03.2019 Date of Order: 14.03.2019

¶8

¶9

S. K. SAHOO, J . One, who falls prey to emotional blackmail, becomes

¶10

a puppet in the hands of a blackmailer. One, who does not resist at right time, becomes the victim of repetitive harassment and

¶11

exploitation. Fear psychosis is created to manipulate and

¶12

¶13

paralyse the victim. One, who screams inside the heart for suffering without a word of protest in the mouth and has no courage to face the reality of life after telling the truth to the close confidants and life partner, gives an opportunity to the shrewd blackmailer to take advantage of one’s simplicity or some mistakes which he/she might have committed in the past. Giving a second chance to a blackmailer is like giving an extra bullet for his gun.

¶14

The petitioner Avinash Tripathy has knocked at the portals of this Court by filing an application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with Lalbag P.S. Case No.112 of 2018 registered under sections 294, 354, 420, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 66-D and 67-E of the Information Technology Act, 2000 which corresponds to G.R. Case No.1386 of 2018 pending in the Court learned S.D.J.M. (Sadar), Cuttack.

¶15

The bail application of the petitioner was rejected by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge -cum- Addl. Special Judge, Vigilance, Cuttack in Bail Application No.95 of 2019 vide order dated 28.01.2019.

¶16

The victim is a practising advocate of this Court and her father is also a Senior lawyer. She lodged the first

¶17

¶18

information report before the Inspector in charge of Lalbag police station, Cuttack on 28.07.2018 indicating therein as to how she was continuously blackmailed by the petitioner on several occasions who used her indecent photographs and morphed photographs to spoil her marital life, extracted money from her repeatedly, defamed her in public, tried to outrage her modesty and caused continuous mental harassment by scandalizing her in public and assassinated her character.

¶19

After lodging of the first information report, the investigating officer examined the victim, her family members and number of witnesses who also supported the case of the victim. The victim in her statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. narrated her painful experience as to how the petitioner started blackmailing game with her by claiming to have some of her indecent photographs which he had taken secretively without her knowledge and also morphed some photographs by technical means, how even after her marriage with Major Soumya Ranjan Pati in the year 2013, he compelled her to visit many places by threatening her to disclose the photographs to her husband and in-laws and also to make it in public, how the petitioner forced her to buy expensive gifts for him, took about Rs.12 to 13 lakh from her in various ways and tried to create difference between

¶20

¶21

her and her husband. Several incriminating documents were seized during course of investigation including the WhatsApp messages and messages sent to the Gmail of the victim by the petitioner. The investigation is still under progress.

¶22

Mr. Srinivas Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 20.01.2019 and the investigation has made substantial progress. The allegations levelled in the F.I.R. against the petitioner are false and fabricated. He placed the undertaking given by the petitioner before the Inspector in charge, Lalbag police station on 28.05.2018 which is annexed to the bail application as Annexure-6 which indicates that the petitioner undertook to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-(rupees five lakh only) to the victim and handed over Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) to her father on that day in the police station and assured to give the balance amount by 27.07.2018. Learned counsel submitted that such an undertaking was forcefully obtained from the petitioner and since the balance amount was not paid, the case has been foisted against the petitioner and a case of civil liability has been given a colour of a criminal case. He further submitted that the materials on record indicate that the victim was having extra marital relationship not only with the

¶23

¶24

petitioner but also with one Amit Kumar Nanda and in that respect her husband Soumya Ranjan Pati who is a Major in Army has given his reply to the Commanding Officer after receipt of the complaint of the victim and also lodged an F.I.R. before Inspector in charge of Airfield police station, Bhubaneswar. The husband of the victim has filed a divorce case against her before the Judge, Family Court, Cuttack vide Civil Proceeding No. 19 of 2019 and the petitioner has been targeted by the victim in order to escape from the accusation levelled against her by her husband. It is further submitted that the petitioner is serving as an Executive in Nestle India Ltd. and there is no chance of his absconding and also tampering with the evidence and therefore, the bail application may be favourably considered.

¶25

Mr. Purna Chandra Das, learned Addl. Standing

¶26

Counsel on the other hand opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there are prima facie materials against the petitioner relating to his involvement in the crime and the investigation is under progress and many important witnesses are yet to be examined and there is likelihood of tampering with the evidence by the petitioner and therefore, he should not be released on bail.

¶27

¶28

Learned counsel for the informant opposed the

¶29

prayer for bail and produced an affidavit of the victim in which she has annexed the first information reports which were submitted before the Inspectors in charge of Mangalabag police station as well as Khandagiri police station relating to the threat given by the petitioner to the victim as well as to the witness.

¶30

The victim herself came forward to oppose the application for bail and tried to convince as to under what compelling circumstances, she could not lodge the F.I.R. early against the petitioner. She stated that the petitioner is now hand in gloves with her husband for which he could get access to the documents of Army which are internal communication between the Commanding Officer and her husband and also the divorce petition copy which are annexed to the bail application. She submitted that averments taken in paragraph 2 of the bail application are beyond record and completely derogatory.

¶31

Adverting to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respective parties and on going through the statements of the victim and other witnesses as well as the documents collected during course of investigation, it prima facie appears that when the victim first lodged a report against the petitioner on 27.05.2018 alleging continuous harassment to her,

¶32

¶33

the petitioner was called to Lalbag police station where he apologised for his conduct and confessed his mistakes and gave a written undertaking not to indulge in any activity to defame the victim, to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the victim which he had earlier taken from the victim and paid Rs.50,000/- to the father of the victim on that day and assured to pay the balance cash of Rs.4,50,000/- by 27.07.2018. The petitioner thereafter on two occasions tried to follow the victim to create a fear psychosis in her for which the F.I.R. was lodged on 28.07.2018. The manner in which while on interim bail, the petitioner tried to take law into his own hand is reflected in the first information reports which are annexed to the affidavit of the victim. The case diary reveals that during course of investigation, the petitioner in order to avoid arrest fled away from his house and was roaming in New Delhi, Lucknow, Chennai, Bengaluru and other places. I find prima facie case against the petitioner relating to commission of offences under which the case has been registered. What would be the fate of divorce proceeding filed by the husband of the victim against her and whether the allegations levelled against the victim by her husband in the divorce petition would be acceptable or not, is a matter which is to be adjudicated by the competent Court where the case is subjudiced. It would not be proper to give any opinion at this

¶34

¶35

stage as to whether the petitioner has been targeted by the victim in order to escape from the accusation levelled against her by her husband. Similarly if the victim feels that the averments made in paragraph 2 of the bail application which is supported by affidavit is derogatory and without any substance and have been made for demeaning her character, she is not remediless.

¶36

Taking into account the nature and gravity of accusation, the nature of supporting evidence, the severity of punishment in case of conviction, chances of tampering with the witnesses and particularly when the investigation is under progress, without detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate discussions on the merits of the case, I am of the humble view that it would not be proper at this stage to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶37

Accordingly, the bail application being devoid of merits, stands dismissed.

¶38

….……………………… S. K. Sahoo, J.

¶39

Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 14^th March 2019/Sukanta

Avinash Tripathy v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avinash Tripathy 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md.Bilal Vs State of Orissa

Biswaranjan Puhan@Dipu@Babu@Tapuni Vs State of Orissa

Chouban Sabar Vs State of Orissa

Durga Das Vs State of Orissa

Purna Chandra Mishra Vs Mamata Mishra

Susanta @ Susanta Kumar Rath Vs State of Odisha