Biswajit Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

The Petitioners are seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with C.T. Case No.515 of 2025 pending on the file of learned S.D.J.M., Balasore, arising out of Balasore Town P.S. Case No.172 of 2025 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 351(2)/318(4)/3(5) of BNS.

¶17

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that considering the tenor of allegation which ex-facie amounts to violation of the terms of agreement inter se between the parties relating to selling of the house of the Petitioners, the FIR ought not to have been registered in the first place.

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

Per contra, learned counsel for the Informant submits that because of their need on account of medical treatment being assured of such sale of house the informant had in fact paid an amount of Rs.34,00,000/- and after receiving such amount with ulterior motive the accused-Petitioners are not refunding the same nor selling the house which they promised and to add insult to injury the informant cited as accused in a counter FIR.

¶20

It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the Informant that further sum of Rs.7,00,000/- also given to the Petitioners on electronic mode.

¶21

Hence, it is submitted that taking into account the conduct of the Petitioner, they ought not to be protected by pre-arrest bail.

¶22

The agreement entered into between the parties inter se dated 01.06.2020 is on record. 7. Learned counsel for the Informant places reliance on a further agreement dated 11.10.2021 inter alia indicating that the amount of Rs.34,00,000/shall be paid on or before 31.10.2024. The said agreement is also taken on record.

¶23

Taking into account the nature of allegation which are offshoot of an agreement between the

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

parties, this Court is persuaded to hold that custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is not warranted.

¶26

Hence, this Court directs that on surrendering within three weeks hence and moving for bail, the Petitioners shall be released on bail by the learned Court in seisin on such terms as deemed just and proper.

¶27

It is needless to state here that this Court has not expressed any opinion regarding the veracity of the allegations. The same has to be gone into independently in an ongoing investigation and is without prejudice to the informant pursuing his rights in accordance with law.

¶28