Dipak Kumar Mohanty Vs State of Orissa

	F.I.R No.	Dated	Police Station	Case No. and Courts’ Name	Sections
Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM M Designation: Personal A Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Date: 02-Jul-2024 18:2 Signature N	19 URMU ssistant Orissa Cuttack 9:30 ot Verif	29.11.2016 ied	E.O.W. Bhubaneswar	E.O.W. Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No. 19 of 2016 corresponding to C.T. Case No. 17 of 2016 pending in the Court of learned P.O., O.P.I.D,Cuttack	Sections 420/467/468/47 1/406/120(B) of IPC read with Section 6 of O.P.I.D. Act.

¶13

2

¶14

This matter is taken up through a hybrid arrangement.

¶15

The Petitioner, being in custody in connection with E.O.W. Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No.19 of 2016 corresponding to C.T. Case No.17 of 2016 pending in the court of learned P.O., O.P.I.D., Cuttack, for the offences under Sections 420/467/468/471/406/120(B) of IPC read with Section 6 of O.P.I.D. Act, has filed this application for a release on bail.

¶16

It is alleged that the Petitioner, as the Managing Director of M/s. Apollo Infra Project Ltd. at Bhubaneswar, collected money from different persons with the assurance of providing flats and despite the passage of time, the Petitioner’s company was not in a position to provide the same as agreed. It is alleged by one of the investors that, he was neither provided with the flat, nor was he refunded with the amount which he deposited, despite he had approached on several occasions.

¶17

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the petitioner has paid substantial amount to the Flat buyers. He further submits that the Petitioner undertakes to pay all the outstanding amount due to the flat buyers within a period of six months

¶18

Signature Not Verifiedfrom today.

¶19

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 02-Jul-2024 18:29:30

¶20

3

¶21

Mr. A.K. Nayak, learned counsel for the OPID referring to the judgment passed in State of Haryana vs. Dinesh Kumar¹ submits that the intent and purpose of Section 439 of the Code is to release any person accused of an offence on bail, and unless the accused is in custody, he cannot move the court for bail. However, in the present case, the Petitioner is on interim bail since long.

¶22

Without going into the merits of the case and considering the facts and submissions made, this Court directs the Petitioner to surrender before the learned P.O., O.P.I.D., Cuttack in connection with C.T. Case No.17 of 2016, within ten working days hence, and apply for bail. In such event, the Petitioner shall be released on bail in the aforesaid case on such terms and conditions as deemed just and proper by the learned P.O., O.P.I.D., Cuttack.

¶23

It is made clear that, if the Petitioner does not pay the amount as undertaken, the E.O.W. is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

¶24

The BLAPL is accordingly, disposed of.

¶25

Signature Not Verified ( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Digitally Signed Judge Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Murmu Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 02-Jul-2024 18:29:30

¶26

1 (2008) 3 SCC 222

Dipak Kumar Mohanty v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dipak Kumar Mohanty v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

O.S.E.B.,Bijuli Vs Chairman,Director

Dr Kishore Ch Pani Vs Supdt Sardar Vallab Bhai Patel Pg Institute of Pediatrics,Cuttack

Trinath Majhi Vs State and Ors.

Sudhanidhi Pattnaik Vs State of Orissa

Dipak Ku.Mohanty Vs State of Orissa

Kirtan Bihari Matia Vs Collector,Keonjhar