Back
ORISSA HIGH COURT
B. N. MAHAPATRA, J.
Tirupati Panigrahi and Ors.
Vs.
State of Orissa.
BLAPL No. 2282 of 2013
Decided On : 04/04/2013
Bail Application - Offence under Section 341/323/294/506/420/468/471/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C. & S.T. (P.A.) Act - Section 439, Cr.P.C. - [341, 323, 294, 506, 420, 468, 471, 34, 3(1)(x)] - The court discussed the nature of the offence, the severity of the punishment, and the evidence in support thereof. The court also considered the larger interests of the public and the State, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice, and the prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were alleged to have committed offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the S.C. & S.T. (P.A.) Act. The prosecution case involved the petitioners inducing investors to part with their money for the purchase of plots, which were not in the possession of the petitioners. The petitioners were accused of misappropriating and converting the investors' money for their own use. The investigating agency received numerous complaints from investors who had not been provided with the plots they had paid for.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners' actions prima facie constituted offences under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The court rejected the bail application, considering the nature and severity of the offence, the evidence available, and the likelihood of the accused interfering with the ongoing investigation.
Issues: The issues involved the nature of the offences committed by the petitioners, the prima facie evidence in support of the charges, and the likelihood of the accused interfering with the investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners' actions constituted offences under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, considering the evidence available and the likelihood of the accused interfering with the ongoing investigation.
Final Decision: The bail petition was rejected, and the court made it clear that the observations made were in the context of the bail application and should not be treated as conclusive and determinative for the purpose of trial, if any.
ORDER
This bail application has been filed under Section 439, Cr.P.C. by the petitioners in connection with C.T. Case No.53 of 2013, now pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar corresponding to Saheed Nagar PS Case No. 7 of 2013 (now EOW Bhubaneswar PS Case No. 1 of 2013) with prayer to release the petitioners on bail on any terms and conditions.
2. Petitioners in the present case are three in number. They are Dr. Tirupati Panigrahi, Chairman, Hi-Tech Medical College and Hospital, Bhubaneswar and Managing Director, Hi-Tech Estates and Promoters Private Limited, (2) Sri Tirupati Choudhury, Director of Hi-Tech Estates and Promoters Private Limited, Bhubaneswar, and (3) Sri Madhusudan Panigrahi, Director, Hi-Tech Estates and Promoters Private Limited, Bhubaneswar.
3. The petitioners are alleged to have committed offence punishable under Section 341/323/294/506/420/468/471/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C. & S.T. (P.A.) Act.
4. Prosecution case in a nutshell is that the complainant-Gopal Chandra Bindhani being a Central Government employee working as Chief Office Superintendent under DRM (P) East Coast Railway, Khurda Raod Division was interested to purchase a plot and contacted the petitioner No.2-Sri Tiriputi Choudhury, the Director, Hi-Tech Estates and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. The complainant was shown the plot in mouza Uttar Munda Muhana under the Scheme named as Kunja Vihar, Phase-I and thereafter the complainant executed an agreement with the petitioners in the capacity of the Director, Hi-Tech Estates and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. towards purchase of plot in the said area. The complainant had deposited Rs.15,000/- vide cheque No.311580 dated 05.12.2000 and subsequently paid Rs.47,400/- by cash for which he was issued with money receipts on 05.12.2000 and 23.02.2004 and also paid monthly installments. In total, the complainant deposited Rs.96,450/- towards purchase of the plot. As per the condition of the agreement, the petitioners issued a letter of allotment of plot No.88 in Kunja Vihar Phase-I vide letters dated 05.12.2000 and 22.10.2004. Though the complainant met the petitioners for registration of land in question in his favour, with some plea or the other, petitioners avoided to give plot to the complainant. On 01.09.2012, the complainant along with his younger brother went to the office of the petitioners at Saheed Nagar and asked them to register the plot in his favour. Hearing this, the petitioners became furious and abuse the complainant in filthy languages where after he left the place. Being aggrieved, the complainant filed complaint petition before learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar on 10.10.2012. Vide order dated 02.01.2013, the learned Magistrate sent the complaint petition to the Inspector in-charge, Saheed Nagar Police Station for investigation and registration of the F.I.R. Though the Saheed Nagar Police station on 02.01.2013 registered the F.I.R. vide Saheed Nagar PS Case No.7 of 2013, but on the next day, the Economic Offence Wing of CID (Crime Branch), Bhubaneswar took over the charge of investigation and renumbered the case as EOW Bhubaneswar PS Case No.1 of 2013 and started investigation of the case.
Since the petitioners were arrested in connection with another case and were sent to jail custody on 25th December, 2012, after the case was registered, a custodial warrant was issued and the petitioners were arrested in this case, while they were in jail custody. Petitioners filed application before the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar under Section 437, Cr.P.C. and the learned Magistrate rejected the bail application. Being aggrieved, petitioners filed petition under section 439, Cr.P.C. before the learned Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar in B.A. No.23 of 2013 and thereafter the learned Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar transferred the case to the Court of the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar which was renumbered as B.A. No.23/63 of 2013 and finally the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhuba
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
