Umakanta Mohanty v. State Of Odisha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No. 5636 of 2022 Umakanta Mohanty ....
Petitioner Mr. P.K. Rout , Advocate -versusState of Odisha ....
Opposite Party Mr. P.K. Maharaj, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
ORDER
29.07.2022 Order No.
03.
1.
This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
3.
The petitioner is an accused in connection with G.R. Case No.537 of 2022, on the files of learned JMFC,(City), Cuttack, arising out of Cuttack CID Cyber Crime P.S. Case No.06 of 2022 under Sections 419/420/467/468/471/120-B/34 of IPC read with Section 66C and 66D of the I.T. Act.
4.
Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for bail U/s.439 Cr.P.C. by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cumSpecial Judge (Vigilance), Cuttack, by order dated 13.06.2022 in the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed. 5.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was not named in the FIR and even if the entire allegation of the prosecution is accepted at its face value, he has no complicity and it is submitted that in fact though the same has been taken note by the learned
Court below but for reason best known, his bail application was rejected.
6.
It is further submitted that one Mr. Abinash Nayak, who is named in the FIR has since been released on bail by order dated 13.07.2022 in BLAPL No.5773 of 2022 by this Court. It is stated that since the petitioner is on a better footing, his bail application should be considered favourably.
7.
Learned counsel for the State submits that the case at hand has intra state ramifications and commission of offences of this nature these days cannot be lost sight of and the petitioner's release will affect the impending investigation.
8.
Considering the release of the co-accused, non-naming of the petitioner in the FIR and the role ascribed to the petitioner, this Court directs the petitioner to be released on bail on such terms to be fixed by the learned Court in seisin over the matter. 9.
Additionally it is directed that the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer once every seven days till the conclusion of trial and shall extend all cooperation. It shall be open to the Investigating Agency to seek variance of this order in the event the petitioner did not extend the desired cooperation. 10.
Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.
11.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rule. (V. NARASINGH) Judge Santoshi