Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 39 (ORI)

Kaifi Khan v. State of Odisha

2024-05-02

SAVITRI RATHO

body2024
ORDER Savitri Ratho, J. This is the second application of the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed in this Court in connection with Mangalabag P.S. Case No.114 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No.334 of 2023, pending in the file of the learned J.M.F.C., Cuttack where chargesheet dated 24.06.2023 has been submitted against the present petitioner-Kaifi Khan, one Sk. Ismail and Amir Khan under Sections 419, 420, 403, 120 (B), 34 of IPC keeping the investigation open for collection of bank statements, arrest of other accused persons, recovery of cheated amount, examination of more witnesses as well as further evidence in this case. Thereafter chargesheet dated 22.12.2023 has been submitted against the present petitioner-Kaifi Khan, Sk. Israel, Amir Khan, Samir Khan and Md. Sakil for commission of offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 403, 120 (B), 506, 34 of IPC keeping investigation open for collection of more evidence, arrest of other accused persons, compliance to the instructions of submission note and further course of investigation. During further investigation one Sk. Aspak @ Mohammad Aspak has been arrested. 2. BLAPL No. 14705 of 2023 filed by the petitioner earlier before this Court had been disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh application for bail after returning the amount of Rs.11,00,000/-to the informant. In view of the submission of Mr. Ratikanta Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner that although the allegation of the informant was that she had been cheated of Rs.62,00,000/- but this was not supported by the documents and bank statements and to show his bona fide the petitioner was willing to return an amount of Rs.11,00,000/- to the informant. 3. Thereafter I.A. No. 255 of 2024 had been filed with the following prayer: 'In view of the above facts and circumstances as stated above, Your Lordship may be graciously pleased to modify the order dated 17.01.2024 by granting bail on imposing stringent conditions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper.' 4. As the order dated 17.01.2024 had been passed after considering the submission of the learned counsel, the I.A. was dismissed as observing that modification of the order would amount to changing the order dated 17.01.2024, but liberty had been granted to the petitioner to file a fresh bail application. 5. It appears that the petitioner has filed this bail application in this Court without approaching the learned court below. 6. Mr. 5. It appears that the petitioner has filed this bail application in this Court without approaching the learned court below. 6. Mr. Bidyadhar Mansing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 24.04.2023 and as all the offences triable against the petitioner are triable by the learned Magistrate First Class and the other accused persons are on bail and as per the case diary, the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents, the petitioner may be released on bail. He further submits that the petitioner could not pay Rs.11,00,000/- to the informant on account of difficulty in arranging the amount and now the petitioner is willing to deposit the amount of Rs.11,00,000/- in the learned court below. 7. Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, learned Additional Standing Counsel opposes the prayer for bail stating that the petitioner has filed this bail application in the High Court without depositing the amount or approaching the learned court below. He further submits that it has been mentioned in the case diary that on verification of criminal antecedents of the petitioner, he was found to be involved in the following cases: (i) Mangalabag P.S. Case No. 115 of 2023 under Sections 419, 420, 34 of IPC. (ii) Mangalabag P.S. Case No. 117 of 2023 under Sections 419, 420, 506, 34 of IPC (iii) Mangalabag P.S. Case No. 118 of 2023 under Sections 419, 420, 34 of IPC (iv) Mangalabag P.S. Case No. 120 of 2023 under Sections 419, 420, 506, 34 of IPC and (v) Sadar P.S. Case No. 230/19 under Sections 323, 212, 325, 341, 365, 386, 506 and 34 of IPC. 8. Ms. Bini Mishra, learned counsel submits that although she has filed the Vakalatnama on behalf of the informant on 03.04.2024 and has been granted receipt no. 42858 of 2024, her name is not reflected in the brief, in the digital record or the cause list. She is heard in the matter. She submits that in view of the similar criminal antecedents of the petitioner, he should not be released on bail. She further submits that as the petitioner has not moved the learned court below for bail and has directly filed this BLAPL before this Court after disposal of his earlier bail application where direction has been issued to him to move for bail afresh after payment of Rs.11,00,000/- to the informant and to file a fresh application. She further submits that as the petitioner has not moved the learned court below for bail and has directly filed this BLAPL before this Court after disposal of his earlier bail application where direction has been issued to him to move for bail afresh after payment of Rs.11,00,000/- to the informant and to file a fresh application. She submits that the present bail application is not maintainable. 9. Considering the allegations against the petitioner, his criminal antecedents out of which four are similar in nature and as he has approached this Court without approaching the learned court below without making any payment, I am not inclined to entertain this bail application and the same is dismissed. 10. It is open to the petitioner to approach the learned court below for bail, if so advised. 11. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.