AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G. Satapathy, J.
These are bail applications U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with Puri Town PS Case No.668 of 2025 corresponding to GR Case No.1560 of 2025 pending in the Court of learned SDJM, Puri for commission of offence punishable U/Ss.318(4)/ 336(3)/ 319(2)/ 61(2)/ 3(5)/ 111(2)(b)/ 111(4)(6) of BNS.
The allegation against the petitioners in brief is that one person namely Fakir Upadhyaya had expired in the year 1984 leaving behind him some landed property at Kashijagannathpur, but the petitioner Suryakanta Sahoo after knowing the same arranged documents and one fictitious person and by impersonating the said fictitious person as Fakir Upadhyaya who is already dead got the landed property of Fakir Upadhyaya sold to his wife by way of a nominal sale deed executed in favour of his wife citing the Petitioner Gopinath Parida @ Gopi and himself as witnesses to the said sale deed and the Petitioner Gopinath Parida @ Gopi knowing fully aware of the same had become witness to such sale deed.
Heard, Mr. Sanjit Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL NO.6432 of 2026; Mr. Biswaranjan Maharatha, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No.2995 of 2026 and Mr. M.R. Patra, learned Addl. PP in these two matters and perused the record.
After having considered the rival submission upon perusal of record, there appears serious allegation against the petitioner-Suryakanta Sahoo for getting the land of a dead person sold to his own wife by arranging documents and a fictitious person as seller as well as signing the sale deed as a witness, whereas the allegation against the petitioner Gopinath Parida is for witnessing such sale deed by putting his signature. In the course of hearing, Mr. M.R. Patra, learned Addl. PP informs the Court that the petitioner Suryakanta Sahoo has got three criminal antecedents, but he has not disclosed his criminal antecedents in his bail application. In the meantime, charge-sheet has already been submitted, however, the petitioner Gopinath Parida is in custody since 24.04.2026. In the context of suppression of material facts, this Court considers it profitable to refer to the decision in Munnesh Vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh; 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1319, wherein the Apex Court at Paragraph 9 of the decision has held as under: -
“9.xx xx xx, since the petitioner has suppressed material facts with regard to his involvement in criminal cases, he is not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail. xx xx”.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and taking into consideration the role as allegedly played by each of the petitioners and keeping in view the other circumstances on record in entirety including the suppression material of facts by the Petitioner Suryakanta Sahoo, this Court while not being inclined to grant bail to the petitioner Suryakanta Sahoo considers it proper to admit the petitioner Gopinath Parida @ Gopi to bail.
Hence, the bail application of the petitioner Suryakanta Sahoo in BLAPL No.2995 of 2026 stands rejected, whereas the bail application of the petitioner Gopinath Parida @ Gopi in BLAPL No.6432 of 2026 stands allowed and the petitioner Gopinath Parida @ Gopi is accordingly allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only with one solvent surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin of the case on such terms and conditions as deem fit and proper by it.
Accordingly, these BLAPLs stand disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules. A soft copy of this order be immediately communicated to the concerned Court, who shall afterwards communicate the same to the concerned Jail through e-mail for reference.