Partly allowed

Sumit Nandan Mohanty @ Sunit Nanda v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC26 Apr 2021BLAPL/2544/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court heard two bail applications filed under Section 439 CrPC arising from a case involving criminal trespass and extortion. While bail was denied to the main accused due to potential threats to witnesses given the civil litigation context, bail was granted to two other petitioners, one designated as a henman and the other an associate, as they were found to have played a minimal role.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to Petitioner No.1 in Item No.1 (Sumit) and Petitioner No.2 in Item No.2 (Sanjukta); bail denied to Petitioner No.1 in Item No.2 (Bijay).

Sumit Nandan Mohanty @ Sunit Nanda Vs State of Odisha — Property and Title | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

BLAPL NO.2544 OF 2021

¶2

BLAPL NO. 2544 OF 2021 (I) & BLAPL NO. 2550 OF 2021 (II)

¶3

02. 26.04.2021

¶4

The matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.

¶5

Mr. D. Panda, learned Counsel filing a memo through Mr. B. Nayak, Advocate having the power for the Petitioner of the BLAPL under Item No.I which has been taken on record has entered appearance on behalf of said Petitioner.

¶6

Since both the BLAPLs under Item Nos.I and II arise from Nayapalli P.S. Case No.145 of 2021 registered for commission of offence under section 450/395 IPC corresponding to C.T. case No.1632 of 2021, pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, those have been heard together for their disposal by the common order

¶7

The Petitioners being in custody in connection with the above noted case have filed these applications under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for their release on bail.

¶8

Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the Petitioner of the BLAPL under Item No.I submits that except the fact that the name of this Petitioner is indicated in the FIR as the henchman of accused-Bijay Kumar Nayak who is the Petitioner No.1 in the BLAPL under Item No.II and Mrs. Upasana Mohapatra and stated to have gone to the place with them, no such specific role

¶9

¶10

or overt-act is attributed to him in the entire incident. He further submits that merely because the Petitioner had the acquaintance with co-accused Bijay Kumar Nayak in order to be harassed, he has been unnecessarily arraigned in the case when he had no knowledge at all as to any dispute between the informant and that accused Bijay Kumar Nayak. In view of all these above, when no such material surfaces on record suggestive of the fact that there is scope for the Petitioner to flee from justice or tamper the evidence and as no criminal antecedent of the Petitioner is shown, placing the period of detention of his detention in custody; he urges for grant of bail to him.

¶11

Mr. B.P. Das, learned Counsel for the Petitioners of the BLAPL under Item No.II submits that all these allegations made in the F.I.R. are false and have been exaggeratedly stated. He submits the over jealousness of the Informant in foisting the case gets expressed as here even the wife of the Petitioner No.1-Bijay who is Petitioner No. 2 and their son and with whom he had no such connection have not even been spared from being roped in the case merely stating that they had accompanied Petitioner No.1-Bijay to the spot. It is submitted that this Petitioner No.1 being called when had gone to the site to participate in the discussion as to compromise of the dispute regarding the Informant’s vacation of the premises, this story has been coined with mischievous aim which has later on been pointed with

¶12

¶13

political colour. In view of all these above, when in the facts and circumstances there appears no scope for the Petitioners to flee from justice and tamper the evidence, placing their period of detention in custody; he urges for grant of bail to them.

¶14

Learned counsel for the State opposes the move.

¶15

I have perused the case diary placed by the learned Counsel for the State.

¶16

The Informant is said to be a tenant of the house standing over the land under plot No. N-3/211 at IRC Village, Bhubaneswar. The occurrence is said to have taken place on 16.03.2021 around 4/5 p.m. It is stated that the accused Bijay, his wife, son and Mrs. Upasana Mohapatra entered into the ground floor of the said building with 40 to 50 others abused the Informant using obscene words and having threatened with dire consequence assaulted him by sharp objects causing injuries on his person, caused damage to the articles kept in his Office and carried away some valuables including important files, mobile phones, computer sets, cash etc. All miscreants are said to have been led by accused Bijay and Mrs. Upasana Mohapatra. It is further alleged that they entered the first floor by breaking upon the door and compelled him to write a document of compromise to the effect of his immediate vacation of the house in question. It has been stated that in course of incident which stretched over quite some time although the wife of the Informant approached

¶17

¶18

the Police seeking help, for the reasons best reason known to them giving an impression of having their prior approval to the said happening, they remained silent for a long time and arrived at the spot during midnight hour.

¶19

The case of the Informant as laid in the plaint of the suit is that he is a tenant under accused Bijay Kumar Nayak since December, 2016. Accused-S.S. Biswal, wife of accusedUpasanna had paid the outstanding dues of the loan taken for purchase of said building with the assurance from accused Bijay that he would sale the same to him and that is the reason accused Bijay was anxious to getting vacant possession of the tenanted premises at the earliest so that he would sale the property. But the records reveal that apprehending forcible dispossession at the instance of accused-Bijay, the Informant has filed that Civil Suit No. 560 of 2021 in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhubaneswar seeking protection as to his possession in respect of the tenanted premises in his occupation. In that suit, accusedBijay is the sole Defendant. On 02.03.2021 in I.A. No. 01 of 2021, learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhubaneswar has passed an order directing maintenance of the status quo in respect of the suit property. The specific prayer therein is for restraining accused Bijay from creating any disturbance in the occupation of the said premises by the Informant and for not evicting him therefrom without following due process of law. The copies of

¶20

¶21

the orders passed in the Suit and other connected papers have been seized in course of investigation. The FIR being registered in the mid-night i.e. 12.36 hours on 17.3.2021, the Investigating Officer has visited the spot. The date for appearance of accused Bijay Kumar Nayak in the said suit was fixed to 17.3.2021. Witnesses being examined thereafter by the Investigating Officer have stated about the incident to have taken place on 16.3.2021 around 4/5 a.m. regarding ransacking of the Office etc. and damages caused in the rooms in occupation of the Informant. The Investigating Officer during his spot visit having noticed said marks of violence and damage has seized some incriminating materials. It has also been ascertained during the investigation that some of the co-accused persons said to have accompanied are having criminal antecedent as noted in the case diary. However in so far as accused-Sumit is concerned, no such information finds mention therein.

¶22

The materials on record however do not indicate any such significant role to have been played by accused Sumit (Petitioner of the BLAPL under Item No.I) as also accused-Smt. Sanjukta Ray @ Nayak who is wife of accused-Bijay (Petitioner No.2 of the BLAPL under Item No.II). Accused Bijay with accused Mrs. Upsanna Mohapatra, the wife of accused-Subransu Biswal, the intending purchaser of the property have been portrayed to have led the miscreants whereafter ransacking of the office of the

¶23

¶24

Informant and other criminal activities in assaulting him taking away movables etc. are said to have been carried out as directed. This accused-Bijay being a party to the civil litigation was directed by an order of the Civil Court to maintain status-quo in respect of the premises in occupation of the Informant. When the date of the suit was fixed to 17.3.2021, the incident has taken place on 16.03.2021 afternoon. In view of above, at this stage, it cannot be inferred that accused-Bijay had absolutely no knowledge of the interim order passed by the Civil Court against him and that he had gone there being totally unaware of the said order of restrain running against him.

¶25

Considering the submissions made and taking into account all these above, further keeping in view the date, time and place of the incident as also the manner of its happening as emanate from the materials on records along with the other surrounding circumstances, at this stage of investigation when potential threat to the witnesses from the side of said accused-Bijay is also not altogether ruled out and other accused persons are yet to be arrested, I am not inclined to grant bail to said accused-Bijay Kumar Nayak (Petitioner No.1 of the BLAPL under Item No.I). However, the prayer for grant of bail to accused-Sumit Nandan Mohanty @ Sumit Nanda (Petitioner of the BLAPL under Item No.I and accused, namely, Smt. Sanjukta Ray @ Nayak (Petitioner No.2 of the BLAPL under Item No.II) being allowed;

¶26

¶27

it is directed that they be released on bail in the aforesaid case on such terms and conditions as deemed just and proper by the Court in seisin of the case with further conditions that they will not indulge in any criminal activity and will not terrorize or threaten the prosecution witnesses.

¶28

Both the BLAPLs accordingly stand disposed of.

¶29

As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of the order available in the High Court’s website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed, vide Court’s Notice No.4587, dated 25^th March, 2020 as modified by Court’s Notice No.4798 dated 15^th April, 2021.

¶30

…………………….. D. Dash, J.

¶31

Aks

Sumit Nandan Mohanty @ Sunit Nanda v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumit Nandan Mohanty @ Sunit Nanda 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

Paidana Vs Baipathu

Nrusingh Pr.Sahu Vs Rama Kumari Devi

Biswadev Roy Vs Prem Khemani

Khageswar Panda Vs Union of India

Laxmidhar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Israil Khan Vs State of Odisha