Allowed

Ramachandra Upadhyay v. State of Odisha(Vig.)

Orissa HC10 Apr 2019BLAPL/2204/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to a petitioner accused of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act, allowing him to furnish a bond and satisfy conditions of cooperating with the investigation without absconding.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.50,000 with sureties and undertaking to appear before the investigating officer.

Ramachandra Upadhyay Vs State of Odisha(Vig.) — Corruption | Orissa HC (2019)

¶1

BLAPL No. 2204 of 2019

¶2

03. 10.04.2019

¶3

Heard Mr. D.P. Dhal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Jyotsna Rani Tripathy, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department.

¶4

This is an application under section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No.04 of 2019 corresponding to V.G.R. Case No.01 of 2019 pending in the file of learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Balasore for alleged commission of offences under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended by Amendment Act, 2018 read with section 109 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶5

The prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Balasore vide order dated 28.02.2019.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a Lecturer in Botany, Talanagar Jr. College, Soro in the district of Balasore and the figure which has been given in the First Information Report relating to the acquisition of disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.2,53,34,699/- (rupees two crores fifty three lakhs thirty four thousand six hundred ninety nine) is incorrect one. The petitioner and his wife were running a coaching centre where more than three hundred students were taking coaching and the income of that coaching centre has not been taken into account.

¶7

The learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department submitted that during course of investigation, the petitioner could not produce any

¶8

documents relating to the list of students and list of teachers in the so-called coaching centre and however, in the income tax return file, he has shown the income from such a coaching centre which appears to be a false one. It is further submitted that the wife of the petitioner also failed to produce any documents relating to running of coaching and bio-activa centre. She further submitted that the income tax return file of the petitioner and his wife are yet to be received from the I.T. Department and the investigation is under progress and at this stage, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there would be chance of tampering with the evidence.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigating agency and produce all the necessary documents which would substantiate prima facie that there was a coaching centre and the petitioner and his wife were earning from that coaching centre. He further submitted that, in the meantime, the investigation has made substantial progress and there is no chance of absconding of the petitioner and therefore, the bail application may be favourably considered.

¶10

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, the nature of accusation against the petitioner, progress of investigation, the period of detention of the petitioner in judicial custody and absence of any chance of absconding of the petitioner, I am inclined to release the petitioner on

¶11

bail.

¶12

Let the petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/(rupees fifty thousand) with two local solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin over the matter with further conditions that on being noticed, the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required, cooperate with the investigation, shall not try to tamper with the evidence and shall appear before the learned trial Court when the case is posted for trial.

¶13

Violation of any of the terms and conditions would entail cancellation of bail.

¶14

The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of.

¶15

Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules.

¶16

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

¶17

…………………..……

¶18

S.K.Sahoo,J.

¶19

RKM

Ramachandra Upadhyay v. State of Odisha(Vig.)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramachandra Upadhyay v. State of Odisha(Vig.)

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

Manohar Chhati Vs State of Odisha

Pratap Chandra Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Santasila Sadangi@Santa Vs State of Odisha

Kalu Bahadur Vs State of Odisha

Subrat Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Bapi@Purusottam Sahu Vs State of Odisha