Allowed¶27

Sukanta Kumar Nayak v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC3 Jan 2025BLAPL/8379/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail; Section 439 Cr.P.C.; Sections 420/34 IPC; cheating; common intention; Malkangiri P.S. Case No.75 of 2024; G.R. Case No.95 of 2024; S.D.J.M. Malkangiri; bail bond Rs.30,000; one local solvent surety; refund of Rs.30,000 to informant; undertaking to return money; stringent conditions; cancellation of bail on violation; custody since 06.03.2024; charge sheet filed. Parties: Sukanta Kumar Nayak v. State of Odisha. Bench: Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra. Decided: 03.01.2025.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail in G.R. Case No.95 of 2024 on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.30,000/- with one local solvent surety for the like amount, subject to refund of Rs.30,000/- to the Informant at the time of release; the court in seisin may impose further conditions, breach entailing cancellation. The BLAPL was accordingly disposed of.

Sukanta Kumar Nayak Vs State of Odisha — Cheating and Forgery | Orissa HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner, accused of offences punishable under Sections 420/34 IPC in G.R. Case No.95 of 2024 (Malkangiri P.S. Case No.75 of 2024), should be released on regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶20

Court's answer

Keeping in view the undertaking given by the Petitioner to return Rs.30,000/- to the informant, the Court was inclined to release the Petitioner on bail subject to imposition of stringent conditions.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

The Petitioner was directed to be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand) with one local solvent surety for the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned court in seisin over the matter.

¶27

Key takeaways

Release was made subject to the condition that the Petitioner refund a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) to the Informant at the time of his release on bail.ratio¶29
It is open to the Court in seisin over the matter to impose any other conditions as may be deemed just and proper.ratio¶30
Violation of any conditions imposed shall entail cancellation of the bail.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack — BLAPL No.8379 of 2024, Sukanta Kumar Nayak v. State of Odisha (order dated 03.01.2025, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra). Regular bail under S.439 Cr.P.C. sought in G.R. Case No.95 of 2024, arising out of Malkangiri P.S. Case No.75 of 2024, pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Malkangiri, for offences punishable under Sections 420/34 IPC. Petitioner in custody since 06.03.2024; investigation complete and charge sheet filed. Per the F.I.R. allegation, Rs.30,000/- was paid to the principal accused, Rajat Patra. Considering the Petitioner's undertaking to return Rs.30,000/- to the informant, the Court released him on bail on a bond of Rs.30,000/- with one local solvent surety for the like amount, subject to refund of Rs.30,000/- to the informant at the time of release; the court in seisin was left free to impose further conditions, violation entailing cancellation. BLAPL disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

BLAPL No.8379 of 2024

¶3

Sukanta Kumar Nayak

¶4

.....

¶5

Petitioner

¶6

Represented By Adv. –

¶7

Mr. Pranab Kumar Das

¶8

-versus-

¶9

State Of Odisha

¶10

..... Opposite Party

¶11

Represented By Adv. –

¶12

Mr. S.K. Parhi, ASC

¶13

CORAM:

¶14

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ORDER

03.01.2025

Order No.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

¶19

Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Party. Perused the materials placed before this Court.

¶20

The present bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the Petitioner for regular bail in connection with G.R. Case No.95 of 2024, arising out of Malkangiri P.S. Case No.75 of 2024, pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Malkangiri for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 420/34 of IPC.

¶21

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that earlier this matter was not before any other Bench of this Court. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner is in custody since 06.03.2024. He further contended that investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed in the meantime. Further, referring to

¶22

Page 1 of 3.

¶23

the F.I.R., learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that as per the F.I.R. allegation, Rs.30,000/- was paid to accused-Rajat Patra. He further contended that the alleged collection of money by the accusedRajat Patra, who is the principal accused. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is ready and willing to return the money to the Informant as alleged by the Informant. In such view of the matter learned counsel for the Petitioner contended the Petitioner be released on bail on such terms and conditions as this Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶24

Learned Additional Standing Counsel, on the other hand, opposed the release of the Petitioner on bail on the ground that the allegations made in the F.I.R. are very serious in nature and that the poor innocent persons of the locality have been cheated by the Petitioner and his company in the name of providing of them employment. Further submitted that in the event this Court released the Petitioner on bail would direct to refund the entire money to the informant as alleged with a further direction he shall cooperate with the investigation and appear before the trial court each and every date fixed without fail.

¶25

Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on careful consideration of the surrounding facts as well as materials on record, further keeping in view an undertaking given by the Petitioner to return the money to the informant of Rs.30,000/- in this case, this Court is inclined to release the Petitioner on bail subject to imposition of stringent conditions.

¶26

Hence, it is directed that the Petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand) with one local solvent surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned court in seisin over the matter. The release of the Petitioner shall be subject to condition that the Petitioner shall

¶27

Page 2 of 3.

¶28

Debasis

¶29

refund a sum of Rs.30,000/-( Rupees Thirty Thousand) to the Informant at the time of release of his release on bail.

¶30

It is open for the Court in seisin over the matter to impose any other conditions as may be deemed just and proper. Violation of any other conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail application.

¶31

The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶32

( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge

¶33

Signature Not Verified

¶34

Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 04-Jan-2025 17:34:51

¶35

Page 3 of 3.

Sukanta Kumar Nayak v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukanta Kumar Nayak v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gouri Shankar Digal @ Sankar Digal Vs State of Odisha

Sanmali @ Antarjami Ghadei Vs State of Odisha

Rama Krushna Muduli Vs State of Odisha

Hasibul Sk. Vs State of Odisha

Babula Bagh @ Horijan Vs State of Odisha

Parikshita Behera Vs State of Odisha