Ananya Rout v. State Of Odisha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ABLAPL No.1573 of 2022 Ananya Rout ....
Petitioner Mr.Devashis Panda, Advocate -versusState of Odisha ....
Opp. Party Mr.J.P. Patra, Addl. Standing Counsel Mr. B.K. Routray, Advocate (for the informant)
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO Order No.
ORDER
21.04.2022 02.
This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode). Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant.
This is an application under section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with CID (CB) P.S. Case No.12 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1412 of 2018 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Panposh for alleged commission of offences under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Mr. Devidutta Biswa Jiban Mishra, the Addl.
Superintendent of Police, CID (CB) is present, who is
// 2 // the Investigating Officer of the case. He submitted that the petitioner Ananya Rout is having no criminal antecedents and she was serving in ICICI Bank, Main Branch, Rourkela and after leaving her service, she is now gainfully employed in some other organization. He further submitted that he has already interrogated the petitioner and collected her specimen signatures as the informant has alleged in the F.I.R. that the signature of her daughter has been forged by the petitioner, but no steps have yet been taken by him for sending the signatures to the Handwriting Expert for comparison as two vital documents are not yet traceable. The Investigating Officer further submitted that he found during the course of investigation that the petitioner has not herself misappropriated the amount involved in the case.
The informant in person appeared and submitted that without his permission, his fixed deposit amount was invested in some insurance policies for which he has suffered huge financial loss and therefore, the petitioner should not be granted anticipatory bail. He placed some paragraphs of the objection filed by him.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, submitted that the main allegation as per the F.I.R. is against the co-accused Gyanendra Panda and he was taken into custody and has been granted bail
// 3 // by this Court in BLAPL No. 1494 of 2022 as per order dated 07.04.2022 and therefore, the petitioner being a married lady may be granted anticipatory bail. He files the bail order copy of the co-accused, which is taken on record.
Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, the nature of accusation against the petitioner, the fact that the offences are triable by Magistrate, the interrogation of the petitioner is complete and keeping in view the proviso to section 437(1) of Cr.P.C., and the release of main accused on bail, I am inclined to release the petitioner on anticipatory bail and accordingly, this Court directs that in the event of arrest of the petitioner in connection with the aforesaid case, she shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer with further conditions that she shall make herself available for interrogation by the I.O.
as and when required and she shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Investigating Officer. Violation of any of the above conditions shall entail cancellation of bail.
The ABLAPL is accordingly disposed of.
// 4 // Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules.
( S.K. Sahoo) Judge PKSahoo