Allowed

Ranjan Kumar Sahani v. State of Odisha(Vig.)

Orissa HC6 Nov 2021BLAPL/8073/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. relating to a disproportionate assets case. The petitioner received 2.6 lac transferred by the principal accused. The High Court released the petitioner on bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000 with two local solvent sureties for the same amount each, subject to conditions.

Ranjan Kumar Sahani Vs State of Odisha(Vig.) — Corruption | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

BLAPL No. 8073 of 2021

¶3

Ranjan Kumar Sahani

¶4

…. Petitioner Mr.S.K.Dwibedi, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha(Vig.)

¶7

…. Opposite Party Mrs.Jyotsna Rani Tripathy, ASC for the Vigilance Deptt.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

JUSTICE R.K.PATTANAIK

Order No.

ORDER

06.11.2021

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.

¶15

This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the petitioner in connection with VGR Case No.5 of 2021 corresponding to Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No. 15 of 2021 pending in the Court of learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Balasore.

¶16

Perused the F.I.R. and impugned order dated 14.09.2021.

¶17

From the F.I.R. it is revealed that Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No. 8 dated 27.02.2018 was registered under Section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(c) Prevention of Corruption Act against one Shri Pravakar Pradhan, Ex-senior Clerk of Tihidi Block District Bhadrak for possession of disproportionate assets beyond known source of income and during scrutiny of bank accounts, it was noticed that huge amount of money had been

¶18

credited to the account of his wife as well as others and while doing so, he cunningly prepared the bills/vouchers and by inserting the names of wife and other relations obtained signatures of BDO, Tihidi Block and submitted the same at the concerned Bank for transfer of funds to the accounts of the alleged beneficiaries. The list of original beneficiaries and the accused persons or the persons to whose accounts the amounts were transferred is mentioned the F.I.R. itself.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused is one of such beneficiaries and allegedly an amount of Rs. 2.6 lac was transferred to his account by the principal accused. It is further contended that the amount was meant for the principal accused though the same was transferred to the account of the petitioner and considering the fact that the investigation to be substantially over, he should be enlarged on

¶20

bail.

¶21

Learned counsel for the Vigilance Dept. submits that there is material evidence to suggest that the petitioner received an amount of Rs. 2,60,000/- (rupees two lac sixty thousand) which was allegedly transferred to the account by the principal accused, namely, Pravakar Pradhan which was revealed during enquiry in case of disproportionate assets filed against the latter and she further submits that there is no instruction regarding any criminal antecedent vis-à-vis the petitioner.

¶22

The total amount which is said to be transferred to the account of principal accused’s wife and other relations stands of Rs. 20,25,000/-. The principal accused and his wife are presently in judicial custody. The petitioner does not appear to be a relation of the principal accused. As claimed by

¶23

Page 2 of 2

¶24

the learned counsel for the petitioner, the accused is a friend of the brother in-law of the principal accused, namely, Pravakar Pradhan. Having regard to the above facts and the fact that only an amount of Rs.2,60,000/- was transferred illegally to the account of the petitioner, whereas, the illicit transaction was in fact carried out and accomplished by the principal accused and under the impression that the investigation must have been substantially progressed, in the meantime, the Court is of the considered view that the petitioner, who is in custody since 14.09.2021, should be released on bail with conditions.

¶25

In the result, it is directed that the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/(rupees fifty thousand) with two local solvent sureties for the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court below in seisin over the matter with conditions that he shall cooperate the I.O. of the concerned P.S. for the purpose of investigation; and shall appear before him as and when required without fail.

¶26

The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of.

¶27

An urgent certified copy of this order may be issued as per rules.

¶28

(R.K.Pattanaik) Judge

¶29

Ranjan Kumar Sahani v. State of Odisha(Vig.)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjan Kumar Sahani v. State of Odisha(Vig.)

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

Krishna Sethi Vs State of Odisha

Susanta Akhua Vs State of Odisha

Harman Das Vs State of Odisha

Purushottam Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Ranjan Maharana @ Nanda Vs State of Odisha

Ishiq @ Ishaq Singh Vs State of Odisha