Rudra Pratap Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Instant revision is filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned order at Annexure-1 to the extent imposing a condition of cash security on the grounds stated.

¶16

It is submitted to the Court by Mr. Parida, learned counsel for the petitioner that since the condition is onerous, hence, the same to be dispensed with directing release of the vehicle upon fulfilment of other conditions imposed and to that extent, the impugned order at Annexure-1 is liable to be interfered with.

¶17

Recorded the submission of Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State, who justifies the impugned order dated 16^th August, 2025 at Annexure-1 of the learned court below in view of the nature of allegations against the petitioner.

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

As per the impugned order i.e. Annexure-1, the petitioner has been directed to furnish cash security of Rs.11,58,430/- and with other conditions to be fulfilled while receiving interim custody of the seizure vehicle.

¶20

In course of hearing, a copy of the deposition of the informant is produced by Mr. Parida, learned counsel for the petitioner to submit that the amount was received by the petitioner from the informant towards purchase of a duplex. It is further submitted that the petitioner has already furnished a cash security of Rs.5 lac at the time of his release on bail. Pursuant to the Court’s order in BLAPL No.7918 of 2024, hence, therefore, a further direction with such a condition is excessive.

¶21

Considering the facts pleaded on record and submissions of learned counsels for both the sides, the Court is of the view that a condition for cash surety as has been directed by the learned court below should be modified. The Court is of the view that the petitioner should instead be directed to furnish a cash surety of Rs.50,000/- as he has already deposited an amount of Rs.5 lac earlier. The Court is of the opinion that any such condition of cash surety as imposed by the learned court below would virtually amount to denial of release of the seizure vehicle, which is lying inside the premises of the local PS exposed to sun and rain and other vagaries of climatic condition. In other words, the Court is in favour of modifying the impugned condition imposed as per Annexure-1.

¶22

Accordingly, it is ordered.

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

In the result, the revision petition stands disposed of modifying the condition(a) of the impugned order as at Annexure-1 with a direction to the petitioner to furnish a cash surety of Rs.50,000/- instead. It is further directed that upon furnishing such cash surety and complying other conditions imposed, the seizure vehicle bearing Registration No.OD-02BS-1666 shall be released forthwith in favour of the petitioner in connection with Misc. Case No.71 of 2025.

¶25

Urgent copy of this order be issued as per rules.

¶26

Rojina

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJINA SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CTC Date: 18-Sep-2025 12:32:00

¶29

Page 3 of 3

Rudra Pratap Mohanty v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rudra Pratap Mohanty 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunita Behera Vs Collector, Ganjam

Mihira Kumar Mishra Vs State of Odisha

Tirtha Sahu Vs Mst.Sarojini Bhoi

Prakash Kumar Choudhury Vs State of Odisha

Sumanta Sundara Vs State of Odisha

Subasini Jena Vs Collector and District Magistrate , Bhadrak