Allowed

Geetanjali Acharya v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC4 Jun 2021BLAPL/2742/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the High Court allowed the petition of Geetanjali Acharya, an employee accused of cheque fraud and misappropriation in a property deal case. The court granted bail pending the fixing of conditions by the lower court, noting her detention duration and non-leadership role.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner Geetanjali Acharya released on bail on terms and conditions to be fixed by the lower court, including cooperation with investigation.

Geetanjali Acharya Vs State of Odisha — Corruption | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

BLAPL No. 2742 of 2021

¶2

Geetanjali Acharya …. Petitioner -Vrs.-

¶3

State of Odisha …. Opp. party

¶4

04.06.2021 Heard Mr. V. Narasingh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bibekananda Bhuyan, learned Counsel for the OPID through Video Conferencing mode in the Vacation Court.

¶5

This is an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the petitioner- Geetanjali Acharya in connection with Bhubaneswar EOW P.S. Case No.04 of 2019 corresponding to C.T. Case No. 02 of 2019 pending in the Court of the learned Presiding Officer, Designated Court under OPID Act, Cuttack registered for commission of offence punishable under Sections 406/420 of I.P.C. read with Section 6 of OPID Act.

¶6

The petitioner had moved an application for bail before the Court of learned P.O., D.C., OPID Act, Cuttack which was rejected on 04.03.2021.

¶7

Mr. Narasingh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, a law graduate was an employee of M/s Raghupatee Estate & Holding Pvt. Ltd. She was not being paid any monthly remuneration but was given incentive when any flat was booked . She has signed various documents and cheques in her capacity as employee of the Company and was never in the helm of affairs of the Company and the Managing Director was one Prabhat Kumar Nanda. He also submits that the petitioner was not an accused in the FIR and

¶8

¶9

Sukanta

¶10

FIR had been registered against Prabhat Kumar Nanda Chairman cum M.D of M/s Raghupatee Estate & Holding Pvt. Ltd. and the Company Raghupatee Estate & Holding Pvt. Ltd. represented by Prabhat Kumar Nanda and that charge sheet was submitted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 120-B/420/406/467/468/471 of I.P.C. read with Section 6 of OPID Act against Prabhat Kumar Nanda, Director of M/s Raghupatee Estate & Holding Pvt. Ltd. and its Company Raghupatee Estate & Holding Pvt. Ltd., on 06.05.2020 keeping the investigation open. It has been mentioned in the chargesheet that there is ample evidence against Prabhat Kumar Nanda Director of M/s Raghupatee Estate & Holding Pvt. Ltd. and his Company Raghupatee Estate & Holding Pvt. Ltd. for misappropriation of Rs 40,71,880/collected from three depositors namely, Debajyoti Dutta, Mamata Barik and Javed Alli Ansari with assurance to provide them flats. Taking the total amount involved to be Rs 36 lakhs in place of Rs 40 lakhs, Prabhat Kumar Nanda, the main accused had been granted interim bail by this Court in BLAPL No. 811 of 2020 with the condition that he will deposit cash security of Rs. 11 lakhs and property security of Rs.25 lakhs free of all encumberances Although the petitioner has cooperated with the investigation , but on the allegation that she has signed agreements , issued receipts of the Company after receiving cash and had issued blank cheques for return of the money when there was no money in the account, she has been arrested by the EOW and is in judicial custody since 19.02.2021. More than three months have elapsed since then and no useful purpose

¶11

¶12

will be served by detaining her in jail custody any further as investigation should have progressed substantially in the meanwhile. He further submits that the petitioner is a lady and keeping in view the proviso to section 437(1) of Cr.P.C., the bail application may be favourably considered.

¶13

Mr. Bibekananda Bhuyan, learned Counsel for the OPID opposes the prayer for bail and states that the petitioner has accepted cash of Rs 21,50,000/- from Anjana Giri , niece of depositor Mamata Barik and issued money receipts on behalf of M/s Raghupatee Estate and Holding Pvt Ltd and she was the office staff/ agent of Prabhat Kumar Nanda the Managing Director. He also submits that the petitioner has executed an agreement with Mamata Barik to provide her another plot amounting to Rs 30 lakhs if she failed to provide Flat No 305 in PTISTINE PARK. She has issued five undated cheques in favour of Mamata Barik knowing that the account had no balance .This account has had no transactions in it after 28.11.2017. This is indicative of the dishonest intention of the petitioner to dupe the depositor in connivance with the main accused. Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel has however not disputed the fact that this petitioner was an employee of the Company and the main accused had been granted interim bail by this Court in BL APL No. 811 of 2020 with the condition that he will deposit cash security of Rs 11 lakhs and property security of Rs.25 lakhs free of all encumbrances.

¶14

Considering the respective submissions, nature of allegations against the petitioner, period of her detention in judicial custody and the proviso to section

¶15

¶16

437(1) Cr.P.C, I am inclined to allow this application for bail.

¶17

Let the petitionerGeetanjali Acharya be released on bail on such terms and conditions as may be fixed by the learned Court below in seisin over the matter, including the following conditions:

¶18

She will co-operate with investigation. 2. She will furnish cash security of Rs 30,000/(Rupees Thirty Thousand only). The cash security, if furnished, shall be kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank, which shall be renewed from time to time till conclusion of the trial. This deposit shall be without prejudice to the contentions of either party.

¶19

The BL APL is accordingly disposed of.

¶20

As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the petitioner 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.

¶21

Savitri Ratho (Vacation Judge)

¶22

I.A. No. 556 of 2021

¶23

04.06.2021

¶24

In view of the order passed in BLAPL No 2742 of 2021, this I.A is disposed of as infructuous.

¶25

……………………… Savitri Ratho (Vacation Judge)

¶26

¶27

Geetanjali Acharya v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Geetanjali Acharya 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

Ramakanta Biswal Vs State of Odisha

Motum Suba Vs State of Odisha

Ghuma @ Ramakanta Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Rudra Prasad Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Sangram Keshari Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Disco @ Ram Chandra Das Vs State of Odisha