Allowed

Tanweer Nazri v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC8 Sept 2023BLAPL/2569/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two bail petitions were filed by Tanweer Nazri and Abul Hasnain against bail rejection in a C.T. case under the OPID Act alleging misappropriation. The High Court directed release on bail subject to staggered money deposit orders referencing Satender Kumar Antil and family surety bonds.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail upon deposit of Rs. 50 lakhs with further installments and execution of family surety bonds.

Tanweer Nazri Vs State of Odisha — Corruption | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

BLAPL No. 2569 of 2023

¶3

Tanweer Nazri

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

Mr. A.P. Bose, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha

¶8

Opposite Party

¶9

Mr. A.K. Nayak, Adv. (OPID)

¶10

BLAPL No. 6124 of 2023

¶11

Order No.

¶12

Abul Hasnain …. Petitioner
Mr. A.P. Bose, Advocate
-versus-
….
State of Odisha Opposite Party
Mr. A.K. Nayak, Adv. (OPID)
CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
ORDER
08.09.2023

¶13

1. Since both the BLAPLs relate to the same P.S. Case (EOW Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No.21 of 2022), on the consent of the learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as learned counsel for the OPID, they are taken up together and are disposed of by this common order.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the OPID.

¶15

The Petitioners are accused in connection with C.T. Case No.12 of 2022, pending on the file of the learned Presiding

¶16

Page 1 of 6

¶17

Officer, Designated Court under the OPID Act, Cuttack, Odisha, arising out of EOW Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No.21 of 2022 for alleged commission of offences under Sections 406/ 420/ 467/ 468/ 471/120(B) of the IPC read with Section 6 of the OPID Act.

¶18

Being aggrieved by the rejection of their application for bail U/s.439 Cr.P.C. by the learned Presiding Officer, Designated Court under the OPID Act, Cuttack, by impugned orders in the aforementioned cases, the present BLAPLs have been filed.

¶19

It is submitted by the learned counsel that the Petitioner (Tanweer Nazri) in BLAPL No.2569 of 2023 is in custody since 11.12.2022 and Petitioner (Abul Hasnain) in BLAPL No.6124 of 2023 is in custody since 13.12.2022. 6. The allegation against the Petitioner (Tanweer Nazri) in BLAPL No.2569 of 2023 is that as a President of M/s. Vastav India Trust, he conspired with the co-accused Abul Hasnain (Petitioner in BLAPL No.6124 of 2023) who is the Secretary of the said Organization and misappropriated the amounts of about Rs.4 crores collected from the public through the district Coordinators, Block/Panchayat Coordinators under various schemes launched by them and deposited in the trust being managed by the accused-Petitioners. Subsequently, none of the beneficiaries got back their money as promised.

¶20

It is submitted that since charge sheet has been filed on 04.04.2023 vis-à-vis the Petitioners, further continuance of the Petitioners in custody is not warranted.

¶21

Mr. A.K. Nayak, learned counsel for the OPID opposes the prayer for bail and submits that other co-accused are at large

¶22

Page 2 of 6

¶23

and hence this being an economic offence, Petitioners ought not to be released on bail.

¶24

He further submits that admittedly since the Petitioners do not normally reside within the territorial jurisdiction of the leaned Court in seisin, it would not be possible to secure their attendance during trial.

¶25

It is submitted by Mr. Bose, learned counsel for the Petitioners basing on the recitals in the Case Diary that so far as the complicity of the present Petitioners is concerned, it comes to the tune of about Rs.1,26,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty Six Lakhs) and hence, they ought not to be made liable for the entire amount of about Rs.4 Crores, as being stated by the learned counsel for the OPID.

¶26

It is stated that the Petitioners have no other criminal antecedent save and except Lephriapada P.S. Case No.190 of 2022 which arises out of self-same transaction.

¶27

An affidavit has been filed at the behest of the Petitioner (Abul Hasnain) in BLAPL No.6124 of 2023 that without prejudice to his rights and that of the co-accused, he is willing to deposit entire sum of about Rs.1,26,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty Six Lakhs) alleged to have been defalcated by them.

¶28

Paragraph-4 of such affidavit which is germane is extracted hereunder;

¶29

“4. That the Petitioner will pay amount of Rs.50,00,000/(Fifty Lakhs) within 30 days from today and after being released on bail the petitioner will pay Rs.20,00,000/(Twenty Lakhs) after completion of 30 days and it is further admitted that the petitioner will pay another cash of Rs.20,00,000/- (Twenty Lakh) after completion of 30

¶30

Page 3 of 6

¶31

days and rest amount of Rs.36,00,000/- will be paid within the period of two months.”

¶32

Mr. A.K. Nayak, learned counsel for the OPID submits that this is an economic offence and as stated by the Apex Court in the recent judgment relating to Satender Kumar Antil vrs. Central Bureau of Investigation & another , reported in 2022 (10) SCC 51 they have to be treated on a different scale and no leniency ought to be shown merely because the Petitioners have volunteered to make part payment and since they have not shown any inclination to pay the entire amount of Rs.4 crores.

¶33

On balancing the competing claims and being cognizant of the fact that the trial is likely to take some time since prosecution seeks to rely on statement of thirty witnesses , apart from documents and keeping in view the period of custody and that the Petitioners are the first offenders (except Lephriapada P.S. Case No.190 of 2022 which arises of their complicity being the President and Secretary of M/s. Vastav India Trust), as stated, this Court is persuaded to direct the Petitioners to be released on bail on the Petitioner (Abul Hasnain) in BLAPL No.6124 of 2023 depositing a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs) as a condition precedent on his behalf as well as on behalf of the Petitioner (Tanweer Nazri) in BLAPL No.2569 of 2023.

¶34

On deposit of the same, the Petitioners shall be released on bail on such terms to be fixed by the learned Court in seisin.

¶35

Additionally, it is directed that after 30 days of such release, the Petitioner (Abul Hasnain) in BLAPL No.6124 of 2023 shall deposit a further sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs) and a further sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees

¶36

Page 4 of 6

¶37

Twenty Lakhs) shall be deposited on or before 60^th days of release and rest amount of Rs.36,00,000/- (Thirty Six Lakhs) shall be deposited on or before 120 days of release. Learned Court in seisin is requested to fix the terms.

¶38

Keeping in view that the Petitioners do not belong to the State of Odisha, it is directed that one of the family member of each of the Petitioners shall execute the P.R bond in addition to the sureties so fixed.

¶39

Additionally, it is also directed that the Petitioners shall not leave the country without express permission of the learned Court in seisin and shall appear before the I.O. once every month on such date and time to be fixed by the learned Court in seisin till conclusion of trial. Certification of such appearance shall be submitted to the learned Court in seisin.

¶40

Further, it is directed that Petitioner shall co-operate with the ongoing investigation.

¶41

Leave is granted to the investigating Agency to seek variance of this order, if the Petitioners do not extend the desired cooperation.

¶42

It is apt to state that on default of deposit of the amount, as undertaken , on the dates as fixed, it shall be open to the learned Court in seisin to commit the Petitioners to custody in accordance with law without any further reference to this Court.

¶43

It is needless to state here that the direction to deposit the amount has been passed in the facts of the present case since the allegation relates to the defalcation of public money in tune with the law laid down in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (Supra), as a deterrent and it ought not to be construed in any way as

¶44

Page 5 of 6

¶45

expressing any opinion regarding the complicity of the petitioners which has to be adjudicated in an independent manner in the impending trial.

¶46