Advocates:
['MILAN KANUNGO', '', 'S R MOHANTY', 'D ACHARYA', 'S MISHRA']

07. 20.09.2021

1.

Since both the applications having arisen out of Jatni

P.S. Case No.17 of 2021, they are heard together through

Hybrid Mode and disposed of by this common order on consent

of the parties.

2.

The Petitioners apprehending their arrest in Jatni P.S.

Case No.17 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. Case No.20 of 2021

pending in the court of learned J.M.F.C., Jatni, registered for

alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections

420/465/468/471/408 IPC read with Section 66 of the I.T Act

have filed the petitions for their release on pre-arrest bail.

3.

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned

counsel for the State so also learned counsel for the Informant.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK

ABLAPL No.1675 of 2021

Himansu Sekhar Kabi

…

Petitioner

-Versus-

State of Orissa

…

Opp. Party

ABLAPL No.1695 of 2021

Munmun Ganguly

…

Petitioner

-Versus-

State of Orissa

…

Opp. Party

CORAM : HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.PUJAHARI

ORDER

2

4.

The prosecution allegation reveals that Himansu Sekhar

Kabi (Petitioner in ABLAPL No.1675 of 2021) while working

in the Private University as Finance Officer siphoned off the

money of the University of more than a crore and parked the

same in the account of his wife Munmun Ganguly (Petitioner in

ABLAPL No.1695 of 2021). However, he has shown the same

in the account of the University to be the payment made against

the demand raised some of the persons which was due on the

University for the works done. He in this regard has also taken

help of some of the co-accused, who have been taken to

custody.

5.

Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the

Petitioners shall make good of the loss of the money of the

University as such they be released on pre-arrest bail.

6.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the State that

in spite of the interim order granted protecting the Petitioners

from arrest, the Petitioners are not cooperating with the

investigation and N.B.W.(A) has been issued against them by

the court below during the investigation to apprehend them as

3

they absconded. Custodial interrogations of both the Petitioners

are required for an effective investigation. Hence they do not

deserve to be released on pre-arrest bail.

7.

Learned counsel for the Informant also echoed the

submission of the learned counsel for the State to oppose the

prayer for pre-arrest bail of the Petitioners.

8.

Considering the facts and the submissions made and

also the fact that the release of the Petitioners on pre-arrest bail

shall have an adverse impact on free and fair investigation of

the case particularly when they have allegedly absconded after

committing the offence alleged and also did not cooperate with

the investigation in spite of the protection given to them from

arrest, this Court is not inclined to release the Petitioners on

pre-arrest bail.

9.

Accordingly, both the pre-arrest bail applications stand

rejected.

10.

Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.

……………………..

PKS

S.Pujahari, J.

4