The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of preventing tampering with evidence and ensuring the accused's availability for trial, even when considering bail applications.

JUDGMENT :

S.K.SAHOO, J.

The petitioner Surendranath Mishra in BLAPL NO. 7106 Of 2016 is the father of the petitioner Trilochana Mishra in BLAPL No. 7107 Of 2016. The petitioners earlier approached this Court for bail in BLAPL No. 7367 of 2015 and BLAPL NO. 7060 of 2015 respectively which were heard analogously and dismissed by a common order dated 25.05.2016. The petitioners moved the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the said order for bail vide S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos. 4540 of 2016 and 4541 of 2016 which were also dismissed vide order dated 20.06.2016 giving liberty to the petitioners to apply for bail at a later stage after completion of investigation with further observation that the same shall be considered without being influenced by the observations made in the impugned order.

2. There is no dispute that the First Information Report was lodged in this case by one Mochiram Sahoo on 03.09.2015 before Inspector in Charge, Chatrapur Police Station, on the basis of which Chatrapur P.S. Case No.119 of 2015 dated 03.09.2015 was registered under sections 420, 423, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the Inspector in charge himself took up investigation of the case. The Crime Branch assumed full control over investigation of the case as per the CID CB Office Order No.152/CID dated 04.09.2015 and the case was re-registered as CID, CB, Odisha, Cuttack P.S. Case No.28 of 2015 on dated 04.09.2015 for offences punishable under sections 420, 423, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the petitioners were taken on remand in this case on 24.09.2015 and charge sheet was submitted on 20.01.2016 against the petitioners under sections 420, 423, 467, 468, 471, 406, 506, 120-B read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and further investigation was kept open under section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. for arrest of the absconding accused and to ascertain complicity of other persons, if any, collection of other evidence and to recover more proceeds of crime.

3. The bail applications of the petitioners were earlier rejected by this Court, inter alia, on the ground that there were prima facie materials regarding the involvement of the petitioners in the commission of crime and also considering the nature and gravity of the accusation, the criminal proclivity of the petitioners, chance of tampering with the evidence particularly when the investigation was under progress and many important facets of the case were to be unearthed.

In the meantime, after completion of investigation, final chargesheet was submitted against the petitioners under sections 420, 423, 467, 468, 471, 406, 506, 120-B read with 34 of Indian Penal Code on 30.12.2016.

4. As per the final chargesheet, the petitioners hatched out a criminal conspiracy to cheat the informant Mochiram Sahu to garb his valuable land and accordingly, they managed to record it in the name of the Trust by preparing forged sale deed on 12.04.2013. The petitioners managed to prepare the deed as a sale deed in place of a gift deed falsely mentioning payment of Rs.26,84,570/-to the informant (seller) as consideration amount. Thus the petitioners prepared a false registered deed and mutated the said land using the false document as genuine. The Trust did not contribute anything towards the purchase or acquisition of land for branch Ashram and the disciples of Chatrapur and Berhampur area also did not arrange fund for the land. It is falsely mentioned in the deed that consideration amount of Rs.26,84,570/-has been paid to Mochiram Sahu earlier in the village in presence of deed witnesses, i.e., Binayak Sahu (the son of the informant) and G. Jawaharlal. On examination, these witnesses stated that they have no knowledge about payment of the consideration amount. The petitioners made Sri Binayak Sahu (son of the informant Mochiram Sahu) as a witness in the deed knowing full well that Binayak Sahu was mentally unsound and unfit to stand as a witness. It is further menti