Dismissed

Sujit Kumar Padhy v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC24 Dec 2021ABLAPL/13820/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected joint bail applications filed by two petitioners involved in a case alleging fabrication of documents to transfer land. The Court dismissed the petitions, denying pre-arrest bail due to the nature of the offences and risk of evasion.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for pre-arrest bail rejected; ABLAPLs disposed of being dismissed; Interim order vacated.

Sujit Kumar Padhy Vs State of Odisha — Cheating and Forgery | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

ABLAPL No.13820 of 2021

¶3

Sujit Kumar Padhy

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha

¶7

…. Opposite Party

¶8

ABLAPL No.14364 of 2021

¶9

Simanchal Patra

…. Petitioner

-versus-

Order No.

State of Odisha

¶15

…. Opposite Party

¶16

CORAM: JUSTICE S. PUJAHARI ORDER 24.12.2021

¶17

Both the Bail Applications are taken up through hybrid moe.

¶18

Since both the Bail Applications have arisen out of the same P.S. Case and similar question of law and facts are involved in both the cases, both are heard together and disposed of by this common order on consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶19

The Petitioners apprehending their arrest in Berhampur Town P.S. Case No.169 of 2021 registered for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C., have filed these petitions for their release on pre-arrest bail.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned counsel for the State.

¶21

Page 1 of 3

¶22

// 2 //

¶23

As it appears, the land belongs to one Nakula Chandra Sethi., but by fraud and fabricated the documents, it was muted in the name of Kishore Chandra Mishra. Subsequently, transferred the same in the name of Sujit Kumar Padhi (Petitioner in ABLAPL No.13820 of 2021). On a complaint being filed by the alleged owner, the matter was sent under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to the police and the Police on investigation found that the Sujit Kumar Pdahi (Petitioner in ABLAPL No.13820 of 2021) along with Kishore Chandra Mishra, so also the R.I., Simanchal Patra (Petitioner in ABLAPL No.14364 of 2021), all are hand in glove in the aforesaid transaction.

¶24

No doubt, the contention has been advanced by Mr. P.R. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner in ABLAPL No.13820 of 2021 that since the Petitioner-Sujit Kumar Padhy is a bona fide purchaser and he is a victim, as such, he deserves to be released on pre-arrest bail. So also submission had been advanced on behalf of the Petitioner-Simanchal Patra in ABLAPL No.14364 of 2021 that he is in good faith reported the matter, but the R.O.R. was held up. Hence, he be release on pre-arrest bail.

¶25

However, learned counsel for the State submits that many forged and fabricated documents of different authorities were found, so also sale deed was executed by impersonation. It was not that Petitioner-Sujit Kumar Padhy is a bona fide purchaser, so also the Petitioner-Simanchal Patra, who is a R.I., was hand in glove in this case, as revealed from the materials on record. In such circumstances, they do not deserve to be released on pre-arrest bail, as their custodial interrogation would reveal in many more such cases wherein they are involved. As such, they should not be released on pre-arrest bail.

¶26

Page 2 of 3

¶27

// 3 //

¶28

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the materials available on record, especially nature and gravity of the offence, circumstances in which the offences stated to have been committed and as it appears, the land of the people in connivance with the official are being grabbed by different land mafias by forged and fabricated documents which causes undue harassment to the owners to get back their land by fighting the civil litigation which continues for years together and the rise in such cases, this Court is not inclined to release the Petitioners on pre-arrest bail. The same is more so as that allowing the Petitioners to release on pre-arrest bail would embolden them to commit similar offences. Furthermore, their custodial interrogation also reveals the manner they are operating and their involvement in many more such cases. In such premises, this Court is of the view that the Petitioners do not deserve to be released on prearrest bail.

¶29

Accordingly, the prayer for pre-arrest bail of the Petitioners stands rejected and the ABLAPLs are disposed of being dismissed.

¶30

Interim order dated 16^th November, 2021 passed by this Court in ABLAPL No.13820 of 2021 stands vacated.

¶31

A free copy of this order be handed over to the learned counsel for the State for its communication to the concerned Police Station.

¶32

(S. Pujahari) Judge

¶33

¶34

Page 3 of 3

Sujit Kumar Padhy v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sujit Kumar Padhy 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

Raju Khatua Vs State of Odisha

Kunu @ Jagannath Matiari Vs State of Odisha

Cyril Xaxa Vs State of Odisha

Sridhar Sethi Vs State of Odisha

Digambar Maharana Vs State of Odisha

Simanchal Patra Vs State of Odisha