Suresh Chandra Padhy @ Padhi vs State Of Odisha

Sashikanta Mishra, J

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.

The petitioner is in custody since 23.07.2023 in connection with Bidyanathpur P.S. Case No.14 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. Case No.01 of 2018 pending in the file of the Presiding Officer, Designated Court under OPID Act, Berhampur, Ganjam for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 420/406/409/425/506/34 of IPC and Sec. 4/5/6 of PCMCS (banning) Act 1978 & 6 of OPID (in F.E.) Act, 2011.

It is alleged that the petitioner in association with several other persons collected deposits from the local public on the promise of giving them higher returns. In the process, more than five crores appear to have been collected from more than 150 persons. All these persons have been cheated. The trial has already commenced with several witnesses being examined. Copies of the deposition of the said witnesses enclosed to the bail application reveals that there is prima facie evidence showing involvement of the petitioner, inasmuch as the witnesses have stated about handing over money to him, who also issued receipts and share certificates to them.

It is argued by Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner that share certificates or receipts do not bear the signatures of the petitioner nor there is any evidence to show that he was working as Branch Manager in the Berhampur office. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been in custody for nearly three years and therefore, a lenient view should be taken.

Mr. B. Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for the State in OPID matters submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender being involved in as many as 11 cases and has also been convicted in some of them. There is clear evidence in the present case of his involvement to the extent of receiving money as Branch Manager from the informant and several other persons.

After considering the rival submissions and on going through the materials available on record including the case diary and copies of depositions of the four witnesses examined so far, this Court, prima facie, finds evidence of involvement of the petitioner in the alleged occurrence. Since it is an economic offence having wide ramifications and the fact that several witnesses remain to be examined, it would not be proper to release the petitioner on bail at this stage.

The bail application is therefore, rejected.

…………………………………