AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G. Satapathy, J.
This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Balliguda PS Case No.198 of 2025 corresponding to CT Case No.369 of 2025 pending in the file of learned SDJM, Balliguda, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.318(4)/305(a)/3(5) of BNS r/w Section 138 of NI Act, on the main allegation of cheating a sum of Rs.29 Lakhs from the informant and her friend.
In the course of hearing, Mr. Mahes Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although there appears allegation against the petitioner for cheating Rs.22 Lakhs from the informant and Rs.7 Lakhs from her friend, but in fact if the allegations on record are taken into consideration, since the mother of the petitioner had issued cheques, which was dishonoured, the informant should have resorted to complaint instead of lodging of FIR because FIR is not admissible in a cheque dishonour case and, therefore, the petitioner being unnecessarily harassed in a criminal case on the basis of an inadmissible FIR, he may kindly be admitted to bail.
On the other hand, Mr. S.C. Pradhan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, however, strongly opposes the bail application of the petitioner by contending inter-alia that the petitioner is involved in a case of cheating on prima facie material and, thereby, the petitioner should not be granted with bail.
After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, it appears that the FIR has been registered against the petitioner and his mother for offences U/Ss.318(4)/305(a)/3(5) of BNS r/w Section 138 of NI Act, but fact remains that no FIR is maintainable for commission of offence U/S.138 of NI Act, rather complaint should have been instituted for offence U/S.138 of NI Act by resorting to the procedure prescribed for it. Be that as it may, after completion of investigation, the petitioner has not been charge-sheeted for Section 138 of NI Act.
The FIR, however, reveals about issuance of two cheques by the mother of the petitioner to the informant. The petitioner is in custody since 16.12.2025, but in the meantime, three seizure witnesses have already been examined as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, the offences alleged against the petitioner are triable by the Magistrate and do not prescribe punishment beyond seven years. In that view of the matter and taking into account the law laid down by the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vrs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2022) 10 SCC 51, this Court without expressing any view on merit admits the petitioner to bail.
Hence, the bail application of the petitioner stands allowed and the petitioner is allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two solvent sureties each 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, the BLAPL stands disposed of. 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.