Partly allowed

Pranati Rath v. State of Odishavig

Orissa HC21 Jan 2020CRLREV/792/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court modified the impugned order dated 25.03.2017 of the Special Judge (Vigilance), Berhampur, which imposed stringent conditions for the release of petitioner's properties, noting that the security amount was excessive as the Vigilance Department did not challenge the order.

What did the court decide?

The condition at Sl. No.III regarding security deposit is modified to Rs.20,50,000/- upon release of such properties. The rest of the conditions remain unaltered. Criminal revision disposed of.

Pranati Rath Vs State of Odishavig — Property and Title | Orissa HC (2020)

¶1

CRLREV No.792 of 2017

¶2

21.01.2020 Heard Mr. K.C. Rajgurumohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sangram Das, learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department.

¶3

Challenge of the petitioner before this Court to the order dated 25.03.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Berhampur in M.C. No.5 of 2016 arising out of G.R. No.32 of 2013(V) is to the effect that the conditions imposed by the learned court below while directing for release of the properties are stringent and harassing.

¶4

Learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department raises objection by submitting that the alleged properties are part of the D.A. amount and investigation is still continuing.

¶5

As seen from the impugned order, the petitioner has sought for release of the properties which are gold ornaments and fixed deposits in item nos.1 to 23 of the inventory list dated 28.12.2013. Admittedly, the Vigilance Department has not come up in challenging the impugned order directing for release of the properties. The amount of D.A. is Rs.1,27,95,251/-. When the Vigilance Department has not put forth any challenge to the order of release of properties, I feel the condition put in at Sl. No.III, i.e., regarding security deposit of Rs.30,00,000/- or Bank Certificate of equivalent amount is very strict and needs to be modified.

¶6

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in view of the aforesaid condition, the marriage of the daughter of the petitioner has been stalled till date.

¶7

Accordingly, it is directed to modify the condition at Sl. No.III that the petitioner shall give property security to the tune of Rs.20,50,000/- before release of such properties. The rest of the

¶8

¶9

conditions as imposed by the learned court below shall remain unaltered. With the aforesaid modification to the impugned order, the criminal revision is disposed of.

¶10

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

¶11

B.P. Routray, J.

¶12

BKB

Pranati Rath v. State of Odishavig

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pranati Rath v. State of Odishavig

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

Sk.Saharukh@Saharukh Khan Vs State of Odisha

Brij Mohan Gupta Vs State of Odisha

Sk.Haibul Vs State of Odisha

Mohan Solomon Das Vs State of Odisha

Adraman Khan Vs State of Odisha

Jitendra Rana Vs State of Odisha