Dismissed

Kabita Malik v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC1 Sept 2021ABLAPL/4444/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa considered an application for pre-arrest bail filed by a Sarpanch accused of offences under Sections 406, 409, 467, 468, and 471 IPC regarding alleged misappropriation of public funds. The court rejected the bail plea, holding that the allegations were serious and custodial interrogation was required.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for pre-arrest bail rejected and ABLAPL dismissed.

Kabita Malik Vs State of Odisha — Corruption | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

ABLAPL No.4444 of 2021

¶3

Smt. Kabita Malik

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

-versus-

¶6

The State of Odisha

¶7

…. Opposite Party

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE S. PUJAHARI

ORDER

Order No.

01.09.2021

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶14

The Petitioner apprehending her arrest in Tihidi P.S. Case No.153 of 2021 registered for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 467, 468 and 471 of the I.P.C., has filed this petition for her release on pre-arrest bail.

¶15

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

¶16

The allegation of the prosecution reveals that an amount of Rs.26,56,922/- was withdrawn from different accounts from Saya Gram Panchayat under Tihidi Block in respect of 20 projects under CFC/SFC during the financial year 2017-18 without execution of any work and without any plan estimate and work order. Out of the same, Rs.23,81,600/- was paid to the contractor Sri Gouri Shankar Behera and the rest amount of

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

// 2 //

¶19

Rs.2,31,322/- was spent by the P.E.O towards purchase of furniture and Rs.44,000/- has been paid to one Dwarakanath Das for electric light.

¶20

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case, as without connivance of the B.D.O., G.P.E.O. and P.E.O. the same could not be done. However, the Petitioner has been made scapegoat. In such premises, he submits that since the P.E.O., namely, Suratha Kumar Das has already been released on pre-arrest bail vide order dated 20^th April, 2021 passed by this Court in ABLAPL No.4626 of 2021, the Petitioner be released on prearrest bail.

¶21

Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for pre-arrest bail of the Petitioner.

¶22

As it appears, Petitioner, being a Sarpanch, has signed in the undated work order and without execution of any work money has been paid. Custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is required for collection of further evidence regarding misappropriation of Government money of such huge amount and the allegation is serious in nature.

¶23

Considering the aforesaid facts and submissions made, this Court is not inclined to release the Petitioner on pre-arrest bail.

Page 2 of 3

// 3 //

Accordingly, the prayer for pre-arrest bail of the Petitioner stands rejected and the ABLAPL is disposed of being dismissed.

¶28

(S. Pujahari) Judge

¶29

Page 3 of 3

Kabita Malik v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kabita Malik 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

Surya Narayan Mallick Vs Subhadra Pradhan

Ramesh Chandra Sai Vs State of Odisha(Vig)

Kanduri Samal Vs State of Odisha

Ashok Kumar Kandi Vs State of Odisha

Chintamani Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Gourishankar Behera Vs State of Odisha