Swaraj Routray v. State Of Odisha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

BLAPL No. 7776 of 2022 Swaraj Routray ....

Petitioner Mr. G. Mohanty, Advocate -versusState of Odisha ....

Opposite Party Mr. Karunakar Gaya, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

ORDER

23.11.2022 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 G.R. Case No.752 of 2022, pending in the file of learned SDJM (S) Cuttack, arising out of Lalbag P.S. Case No.132 of 2022, for commission of alleged offences under Sections 419/420/468/471/120-B/34 of IPC and is in custody since 10.06.2022.

4.

Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for bail U/s.439 Cr.P.C. by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack by order dated 29.07.2022 in the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed.

5.

It is submitted by the learned counsel that the Petitioner is in custody since 10.06.2022 and the charge sheet has been filed on 07.08.2022, his further continuance in custody, taking into role ascribed to him, is not warranted.

6.

Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that allegation is very serious in nature inasmuch as the

Petitioner along with co-accused Bhusan Pattnaik, who is not the Petitioner in this bail application, has issued fake call letters in the name of Registrar (Judicial) and Registrar (Examination) of this Court and has collected money. Hence, no leniency ought not to be shown to him.

7.

This Court had occasion to peruse 164 Cr.P.C statement of Laxmikanta Sarangi and Sujit Debata, Rakesh Roshan Panda, Ramesh Behera and several others.

8.

Considering the tenor thereof and filing of the charge sheet, 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 jurisdictional police station once every week till conclusion of trial.

10.

It is needless to state that the order passed herein shall not enure the benefit to the co-accused Bhusan Pattnaik since it has come to the fore that the statement recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the seals of the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court were seized at his instance. His application as and when moved shall be considered on its own merit.

11.

Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.

12.

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules. (V. NARASINGH) Judge Santoshi