Badapu Jayadev @ Jayadeva Badapu vs State Of Odisha

S.S. Mishra, J

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

The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482  Cr.P.C.  seeking  quashing  of  the  entire  criminal  prosecution initiated against him vide G.R. Case No.91 of 2010 arising out of Gunupur  P.S.  Case  No.55  of  2010  registered  under  Sections 420/468/471 of IPC pending in the court of the learned S.D.J.M., Gunupur.

Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the F.I.R. his name was not mentioned. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that six persons have availed loan from the Bank by submitting fake R.O.Rs. and   other   land   documents. After investigation, the petitioner has also been charge-sheeted. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the entire record produced by the prosecution, there is not a single whisper regarding the fact that his client has availed the loan from the Bank by submitting the fake R.O.R. It is only an isolated statement of one of the Sweeper of the Bank who has implicated him.

Mr. Maharaj, learned counsel for the State submits that the attempt of the petitioner to get the concession of pre-arrest bail by filing ABLAPL No.3562 of 2023 did not get favoured from the Court and the coordinate Bench vide order dated 24.04.2023 has rejected his anticipatory bail application. Perusal of the said order indicates that the coordinate Bench has rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner was absconding.

Mr. Mishra submits that all other accused persons are on bail except the accused persons those who have absconded.

Mr. Maharaj submits that although in the F.I.R. six names were initially found mentioned but in the investigation, it was found that as many as 37 accused persons have availed loan from the Bank by producing fake documents. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in the present case. Mr. Maharaj further submits that the present petition is nothing but a bail application in disguise.

Mr. Mishra submits that during investigation he has not received any notice from the Police and he has no knowledge regarding the case being registered against him. It is only the Branch Manager of the Bank who has manipulated all the documents and implicated the present petitioner.

Perusal of the record reveals that there are oral evidence came on record against the absconding accused persons, who have availed loan ranging from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.50,000/-. At this stage, the Court may not delve upon the merits of each individual accused. Suffice it to say that the petitioner may raise all these points at the appropriate stage of the trial and seek parity with the other accused persons who are on bail in so far as grant of bail is concerned.

Mr. Mishra further submits that his client would be surrendering before the learned court below on or before 05.03.2024 and avail the remedy under the law.

At this stage, Mr. Mishra seeks to withdraw the petition to avail his remedy under law on the ground of parity as well as on merit. He may be granted the liberty.

Taking into consideration the facts and submissions made at the Bar, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned S.D.J.M., Gunupur in G.R. Case No.91 of 2010 arising out of Gunupur P.S. Case No.55 of 2010 as submitted by his counsel on or before  29.02.2024  and  seek  appropriate  remedy  available  to  him under law.

The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of with aforementioned observation.

....……………………………