Allowed

Amrita Priyadarshini Patro v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC19 Oct 2023BLAPL/11024/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed bail to the petitioner, a Branch Manager accused of defalcation, directing her to deposit the outstanding loss amount in five quarterly installments while demonstrating clean criminal antecedents.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. subject to deposit of outstanding amount in quarterly installments, restriction on leaving the state, and verification of criminal antecedents.

Amrita Priyadarshini Patro Vs State of Odisha — Corruption | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

BLAPL No. 11024 of 2022

¶3

Amrita Priyadarshini Patro …. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. A.K. Mishra, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha

¶7

…. Opposite Party

¶8

Mr. K.K. Gaya, ASC

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

ORDER

19.10.2023

Order No.

12.

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

¶15

The Petitioner is an accused in connection with Spl. G.R. Case No.639 of 2018, pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Koraput, arising out of Koraput P.S. Case No.130 of 2018 and Economic Wing Case No.16 dt.25.06.2018 for alleged commission of offences under Sections 409/420/467/468/471/472/34 of IPC.

¶16

Being aggrieved by the rejection of her application for bail U/s.439 Cr.P.C. by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Koraput by order dated 28.10.2022 in the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed.

¶17

The allegation against the Petitioner is that as the Branch Manager of Union Bank of India, Koraput from 17.10.2016 to 27.11.2017, she manipulated the records and opened fake accounts which resulted loss to the Bank allegedly to the tune of Rs.2,05,50,000/-.

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

Learned counsel for the State on instruction from the I.O. who is present in Court, submits that the outstanding amount so far as defalcation is concerned is to the tune of Rs.17,29,000/- as on date.

¶20

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner is in custody since 03.05.2022 and in the meanwhile, as major portion of the amount has already been paid, she may be released on bail.

¶21

Learned counsel for the State submits that this being an economic offence merely because charge sheet has been filed that does not entitle the Petitioner to be released on bail.

¶22

It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the State that since investigation has been kept open, the release of the Petitioner at this stage would derail the ongoing investigation. And, the amount is likely to vary.

¶23

On instruction, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that on being released, the Petitioner proposes to pay the amount of Rs.17,29,000/- in instalments.

¶24

Taking into account that the Petitioner is a lady, keeping in view the spirit of the first proviso to Section 437(1) of Cr.P.C. and as charge sheet has been filed, this Court directs the Petitioner to be released on bail on such terms to be fixed by the learned Court in seisin subject to verification of criminal antecedent of similar nature.

¶25

If it comes to the fore that the Petitioner has any such criminal antecedent, this order shall stand recalled.

¶26

Additionally, it is directed that the Petitioner shall not leave the state of Odisha without prior intimation to the I.O. and without the permission of the learned Court in seisin.

¶27

Page 2 of 3

¶28

It is further directed that the Petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs.17,29,000/-(Rupees seventeen lakh twenty nine thousand) in five quarterly installment, the dates of which shall be fixed by the learned Court in seisin. The first of such instalment shall fall due three months after release.

¶29

In the event the Petitioner defaults in making the payment of any of the instalments as fixed by the learned Court in seisin, it shall open to the learned Court in seisin to take action in accordance with law without any further reference to this Court.

¶30

The amounts as deposited in terms of the instalment to be kept in interest bearing account which shall abide by the final outcome of the case at hand.

¶31

It is needless to state here that the direction to pay the amount as directed shall not in any way to be construed as expressing any opinion regarding the complicity of the petitioner which, has to be adjudicated independently in the impending trial.

¶32

Taking into account that the allegation is defalcation of public money, the direction has been given to deposit, as per the undertaking by the learned counsel for the Petitioner in tune with the law laid down by the apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vrs. Central Bureau of Investigation & another , reported in 2022 (10) SCC 51, where in it has been categorically stated that economic offence has to be treated on a different scale.

¶33

Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.

¶34

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rule.

¶35

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYESHA ROUT Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 19-Oct-2023 18:24:48

¶36

Page 3 of 3

Amrita Priyadarshini Patro v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amrita Priyadarshini Patro 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Geetarani Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Dibakar Budhia Vs State of Odisha

Narayan Gouda Vs State of Odisha

Bijendra Singh Vs State of Odisha

Sai Chandan Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Santosh Kumar Praharaj Vs State of Odisha