BRAHMANANDA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
STATE OF ODISHA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The petitioner has prayed to release him on bail in connection with Keonjhar Sadar P.S.Case No.166 of 2019 corresponding to G.R.Case No.781 of 2019 pending in the court of the learned S.D.J.M., Keonjhar. The offences alleged in this case are under Sections 468/471/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that the petitioner being the C.E.O. of a company, named Vatsalya Empire could manage to cheat the innocent villagers in collecting lakhs of rupees giving false assurance of providing monthly stipend and livestock to them.
(2.) It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that, he has been arrested on 3.7.2019 and in the meantime twenty-six witnesses have been examined in course of trial. The petitioner thrust upon the provision of sub-section 6 of Section 437 of the Cr.P.C. by submitting that despite completion of sixty days from the date of examination of the first witness, the trial is yet to be completed and since the trial could not be completed within the said period of sixty days, he is bound to be released on bail, being in custody for the whole period from 3.7.2019 till date.
(3.) On the contrary, learned counsel for the State submits that the allegations leveled against the petitioner is relating to misappropriation of lakhs of rupees, which he had collectively taken along with other accused persons from the innocent villagers with false assurance to them for providing monthly stipend and goats. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the State that the provision contemplated under Section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. does not lay any mandate in favour of the accused petitioner for his release on bail in default to complete the trial within the period of sixty days from the first date of examination of witness. It is also submitted that the mandate of the legislation is not to release the accused in every case irrespective of the facts considered. Therefore, the learned court below has rightly rejected the prayer for bail of the petitioner considering the prevailing situations of continued lockdown.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.