Dismissed

Samir Kumar Mohanty v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC24 Feb 2022ABLAPL/295/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa dismissed the petitioner's petition for pre-arrest bail. The petition, filed under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B IPC, alleged forgery of the petitioner's signature causing revenue loss. The Court rejected the plea, noting the petitioner was not arrayed as an accused but failed to appear for police verification as directed while alleging the investigation continued

What did the court decide?

The prayer for pre-arrest bail was rejected, and the ABLAPL stood dismissed.

Samir Kumar Mohanty Vs State of Odisha — Bail and Remand | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

ABLAPL No.295 of 2022

¶3

Samir Kumar Mohanty

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha

¶7

…. Opposite Party

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE S. PUJAHARI

Order No.

ORDER 24.02.2022

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶13

The Petitioner apprehending his arrest in Tumusingha P.S. Case No.126 of 2021 registered for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the I.P.C., has filed this petition for his release on prearrest bail.

¶14

Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the

¶15

learned counsel for the State.

¶16

It appears that the Petitioner had earlier approached this Court in ABLAPL No.12349 of 2021 and in the facts and

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

// 2 //

¶19

circumstances of the case, when this Court was not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner, learned counsel for the Petitioner had withdrawn the same, which reveals from the order dated 12^th November, 2021.

¶20

Mr. Basudev Pujari, learned counsel appearing for the

¶21

Petitioner argued in extenso that the Petitioner is no way involved in this case. As such, he may be released on pre-arrest bail.

¶22

In reply, Mr. S. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Party submits that the investigation is going on and the Petitioner is not arrayed as an accused till 20^th December, 2021, but he was asked to appear before the police, as the allegation in the F.I.R. which was stated to be made by the wife of the present Petitioner, who took over charge from him that forging the signature of the then Officer-in-Charge of Excise, i.e., the Petitioner, the liquors in question were removed causing huge loss to revenue. Therefore, the Petitioner has been asked to appear and give his specimen signature to verify

Page 2 of 3

// 3 //

regarding his innocence and truthfulness of such allegation, but

¶27

the Petitioner is not appearing.

¶28

Considering the aforesaid facts and submissions made, this Court is not inclined to entertain the prayer for pre-arrest

¶29

bail of the Petitioner.

¶30

Accordingly, the ABLAPL stands dismissed.

¶31

(S. Pujahari)
Judge

¶32

Page 3 of 3

Samir Kumar Mohanty v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samir Kumar Mohanty 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

Suraj Majhi Vs State of Odisha

Sandeep Dora Vs State of Orissa

Ranubala Roul Vs R.T.O.,Cuttack

Manigal Panda Vs Saswat Debabrata Dash

Tushar Kanta Acharya Vs Rebatikanta Acharya

Kiran Kumar Swain @ Silu Vs State of Odisha