Samir Kumar Mohanty v. State Of Odisha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

ABLAPL No.295 of 2022 Samir Kumar Mohanty ....

Petitioner -versusState of Odisha ....

Opposite Party CORAM: JUSTICE S. PUJAHARI Order No.

ORDER

24.02.2022 02.

1.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2.

The Petitioner apprehending his arrest in Tumusingha P.S. Case No.126 of 2021 registered for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the I.P.C., has filed this petition for his release on prearrest bail. 3.

Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.

4.

It appears that the Petitioner had earlier approached this Court in ABLAPL No.12349 of 2021 and in the facts and

// 2 // circumstances of the case, when this Court was not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner, learned counsel for the Petitioner had withdrawn the same, which reveals from the order dated 12th November, 2021.

5.

Mr. Basudev Pujari, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner argued in extenso that the Petitioner is no way involved in this case. As such, he may be released on pre-arrest bail.

6.

In reply, Mr. S. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Party submits that the investigation is going on and the Petitioner is not arrayed as an accused till 20th December, 2021, but he was asked to appear before the police, as the allegation in the F.I.R. which was stated to be made by the wife of the present Petitioner, who took over charge from him that forging the signature of the then Officer-in-Charge of Excise, i.e., the Petitioner, the liquors in question were removed causing huge loss to revenue. Therefore, the Petitioner has been asked to appear and give his specimen signature to verify

// 3 // regarding his innocence and truthfulness of such allegation, but the Petitioner is not appearing.

7.

Considering the aforesaid facts and submissions made, this Court is not inclined to entertain the prayer for pre-arrest bail of the Petitioner.

8.

Accordingly, the ABLAPL stands dismissed.

(S. Pujahari) Judge DA