SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Ori) 771

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK 
G. SATAPATHY, J. 
Bibhuti Bhusan Acharya - Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
BLAPL No.4874 of 2024 & IA Nos. 380 and 381 of 2025
Decided On : 09-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr Y. Das, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. N.C. Mohanty Adv.
For the Respondents:Mr. C. Mohanty, Addl. PP Mr. S. Palit, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. S.S. Das, Adv. (Informant)

Criminal proceedings are not meant for recovery of disputed dues; the presumption of innocence underlies the decision to grant bail when no risk of flight or witness tampering is established.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 439 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420, 467, 468, 294, 506 - Bail application - Petition for bail filed by an advocate charged with multiple offences, claiming the allegations stemmed from an immoral contract - Court observes that criminal proceedings are not a means for collection of disputed dues, emphasizing the presumption of innocence until proven guilty - The stage of the investigation deemed completed, with no adverse reports against the petitioner substantiating fear of witness tampering or flight risk - Bail granted subject to conditions. (Paras 2, 8, 10, 11)

(B) Principle of Criminal Law - The test for bail consists of assessing the three-fold risk: flight risk, influencing witnesses, and tampering evidence - No substantial apprehension of such risks was identified in this case. (Paras 9.1, 9.2)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an advocate, was accused of cheating the complainant, allegedly providing false legal advice and failing to file cases, leading to a large monetary loss. The informant asserted the petitioner forged documents and threatened him when confronted.

Findings of Court:
The court indicated that the disputes arose primarily from monetary transactions, not criminal behavior, noting the need for a trial to establish the allegations.

Issues: The significant legal questions revolved around the nature of the contract and the legitimacy of the bail based on the allegations presented.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that while allegations were serious, the legal framework required a presumption of innocence; thus, bail was appropriate given the lack of evidence suggesting the petitioner would obstruct justice.

Result: Bail application allowed.

Table of Content
1. bail application basis and accusations (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments for and against bail (Para 3)
3. court's considerations for bail (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. conditions for initiating criminal proceedings (Para 7)
5. final decision on bail application (Para 11 , 12)

Judgment :

G. Satapathy, J.

1. This is a bail application U/S.439 of CrPC by the Petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Bhadrak Rural Case No.77 of 2024 arising out of GR Case No.300 of 2024 for commission of offences punishable U/Ss. 420/467/468/294/506 of IPC pending in the Court of learned SDJM, Bhadrak.

2. The complaint against the Petitioner which was sent U/S. 156(3) of the CrPC to the Police and registered as Bhadrak Rural PS Case No. 77 of 2024 discloses that the Petitioner is an advocate and the complainant being introduced by his friend had discussion with the Petitioner to file case against Bank of Baroda under SARFAESI Act as later had sold out his immovable mortgage secured asset through E-auction sale on 26.11.2021 and on the advice of the Petitioner, the complainant arranged Rs. 1,35,00,000/-(Rupees One Crore Thirty Five Lakhs) from his friends and relatives for one time settlement (OTS), however, the Petitioner advised him(complainant) to pay Rs. 1,49,60,000/- (Rupees One Crore Forty Nine Lakhs Sixty Thousand) towards bank dues, interest and his legal fees and expenses including the OTS amount. Accordingly, on 22.12.2021 the complainant transferred a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) to the account of BD Associates formed by the Petitioner and thereafter, again transferred Rs. 9,00,000/-(Rupees Nine Lakhs) to the complainant through RTGS. Accordingly, a writ petition in WP(C) No. 38939 of 2021 was filed which was withdrawn without the knowledge of the complainant and the complainant further came to know that the Petitioner had filed another case before Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Cuttack in SA No. 6 of 2022, whereafter on 28.02.2022, the complainant paid Rs. 70,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Lakhs) in cash, out of which the Petitioner deposited Rs. 68,00,000(Rupees Sixty-Eight Lakhs) in his account and retained Rs. 2,00,000 (Rupees Two Lakhs) and thereafter, on 04.03.2022, on the request of the complainant, his uncle Madhab Charan Das transferred a sum of Rs. 70,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Lakhs) to the personal account of the Petitioner through RTGS and subsequently, the complainant had sent Rs. 40,000/- to the Petitioner towards his legal expenses on 10.12.2021. After receiving the total sum of Rs. 1,49,60,000/- (Rupees One Crore Forty Nine Lakhs Sixty Thousand), the Petitioner did not inform the status and order of the case filed by him to the complainant, but later in the month of September, 2022, the complainant came to know from DRT that the Petitioner is not his advocate and he has engaged another counsel and the complainant later on verification came to know that the Petitioner has not cleared up the outstanding dues of the Bank and when the complainant protested, finding no alternative, the Petitioner on 05.09.2022 issued cheque No. 014878 for an amount of Rs. 1,40,00,000/-(Rupees One Crore Forty Lakhs) in the name of the friend of the complainant namely Khitish Chandra Jena who had earlier introduced the complainant with the Petitioner and the Petitioner had assured to pay the balance amount of Rs. 9,60,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Sixty Thousand) on or before 03.12.2022, but the cheque on deposit got dishonored with endorsement “account closed”. It is further alleged that on 04.12.2023, the Petitioner and his friends threatened and assaulted the complainant and his friends near Gelpur Chhaka, but despite report to local police and SP, Bhadrak, no action was taken and the complainant presented the complaint which was sent and registered as Police Case for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.395/ 420/ 467/ 468 r/w Sections 25 /27 ARMS ACT and the Petitioner was arrested on 14.04.2024 for commission of such offe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top