CRLMC No.664 of IN THE HI Pravakar Saman State of Orissa an THE HON’BLE Chittaranjan Dash, 1. By means the order the or S.D.J.M., Bhuban dated 19.03.2021 p Special Judge, CB 2021. 2. In the afore declined to release of Standby Letter Opposite Party i.e. House, Ashok Na of 2021 E HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTT CRLMC No. 664 of 2021 manta …. Mr. S.K. Chadha -versus- and another …. Opposi Mr. S.J. Mohanty, A For O Mr. A. Patnaik, For O CORAM: BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN Date of Judgment: 29.01.2026 ash, J. eans of this application, the Petitioner seek he order dated 04.01.2021 passed by t hubaneswar in C.T. No.4259 of 2019 and .2021 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions J e, CBI-II, Bhubaneswar in Criminal Revisio e aforesaid order and judgment, the learned c release the sum of Rs.30,00,000/- deposited Letter of Credit (SBLC) with the banker of t rty i.e. State Bank of India, Commercial Ba ok Nagar, Bhubaneswar as against the s p. 1 CUTTACK Petitioner adha, Advocate posite Parties , Addl. P. P. For O.P. No.1 tnaik, Advocate For O.P. No.2 JAN DASH er seeks to quash by the learned 19 and judgment sions Judge-cum- evision No.22 of arned court below osited in the form er of the accused ial Bank, IDCOL the security for CRLMC No.664 of awarding propose products purporte investigation of th 2019. 3. The factua Petitioner, having Odia daily newspa the authorised sig Limited, Pune, wh of Indizel (bio-dies one Soumya Ranj entered into an Petitioner/Informa retail outlet for Ind of the business p Petitioner paid a su in the form of a L Commercial Branc and also deposited (Rupees Fifteen La of the accused c payments were m accused company, construction works up by the Petitione Sahoo, the autho declined to suppl subsequently clos of 2021 roposed dealership of retail outlet for rported to have been seized in connectio of the case in CID Crime Branch P.S. Cas factual backdrop of the case, in brief, aving come across an advertisement publis newspaper “The Sambad” dated 06.10.2017 ed signatory of M/s. My Own Eco Ener e, which claimed to be a manufacturer and diesel), a renewable diesel product. Pursu a Ranjan Mishra, representing the accused to an agreement dated 01.12.2017 formant through one Tapas Kumar Sahoo fo for Indizel and allied products at Ankul, Jajp ness plan. In furtherance of the said agre id a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty L of a Letter of Credit through the State Ban Branch, IDCOL House, Ashok Nagar, Bh osited a refundable security amount of Rs. teen Lakhs only) in five instalments in the ba sed company. It is stated that after the ere made, one Priyabarta Nanda, Junior H pany, developed the site and undertook c works. However, despite repeated requests a titioner with Soumya Ranjan Mishra and Ta authorised representatives of the accused supply the equipment in terms of the y closed their office at Bhubaneswar, and p. 2 for Indizel and nection with the S. Case No.78 of rief, is that the published in the 0.2017, contacted Energy Private er and distributor Pursuant thereto, ccused company, 017 with the hoo for grant of a l, Jajpur, in terms d agreement, the hirty Lakhs only) te Bank of India, ar, Bhubaneswar, of Rs.15,00,000/- the bank account ter the aforesaid nior Head of the took certain civil uests and follow- and Tapas Kumar ccused company f the agreement, ar, and failed to CRLMC No.664 of respond to the P received towards Petitioner, Clause bank guarantee to of equipment and accused company cheated not only across different pa sums of money. T that the Managin associates were ar Police in connectio offences of cheatin had indulged in si encash or transfe Rs.30,00,000/- to the Petitioner appr 2019 seeking a di Branch, IDCOL H permit transfer of any third party, an alleged fraudulen gravity of the alle disposed of the wr “Regard b the petitio competent is authoriz of 2021 the Petitioner’s requests for refund of th wards the proposed dealership. Accordi lause-7 of the agreement contemplated furn tee to secure the dues of the company towa nt and products. However, it later transpir pany had allegedly adopted fraudulent pr only the Petitioner but several other en rent parts of the State of Odisha, collecting ney. The Petitioner further claims to have anaging Director of the accused compan ere arrested by the Hyderabad Central Cri nnection with FIR No. 78 of 2019 dated 10.0 cheating. It is further alleged that the accuse d in similar fraudulent activities and was att transfer the Standby Letter of Credit ( to unknown concerns. Apprehending s r approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) N g a direction to the State Bank of India, C OL House, Bhubaneswar, not to disburse, fer of the SBLC in favour of the accused c rty, and also sought initiation of investigati dulent activities of the company. Consi he allegations, this Court, by order dated 1 the writ petition with the following directions rd being heard to the facts and submissi titioner is directed to lodge an F.I.R in tent police station or crime branch whiche horized to take charge of the investigat p. 3 of the amounts ccording to the d furnishing of a y towards supply anspired that the ent practices and er entrepreneurs ecting substantial have ascertained ompany and his ral Crime Station ed 10.04.2019 for accused company as attempting to edit (SBLC) of ding such action, .(C) No. 16019 of dia, Commercial sburse, encash or used company or stigation into the Considering the ated 12.09.2019, ections:- issions, in the hichever tigation, CRLMC No.664 of within two lodged, im the compe stand by le (Company) Till one m (SBI Com encashmen standby let favour of th With the af is disposed 4. Pursuant to No. 16019 of 201 CID P.S. Case N against Tapas Ku Nanda and other o Energy Pvt. Ltd. agency seized the Letter of Credit w IDCO House, Bhu by the Bank regar was in urgent need having invested hi and having subse practised fraud by agreed upon. Acc Bhubaneswar seek 457 Cr.P.C. How of 2021 two weeks from today. If such an F.I.R , immediate follow up action shall be taken mpetent police station and withdrawal of by letter of credit guarantee by the Opp. P any) shall be checked in accordance with l e month from today, the Opp. Party No Commercial Branch) is directed not ment or transfer to any other party y letter of guarantee given by the petitione of the Opp.Party No. 3 (Company). he aforesaid observation, the Writ Applica osed of.” uant to the directions issued by this Court f 2019 by order dated 21.09.2019, the CID ase No. 11 of 2019 at the instance of the as Kumar Sahoo, Soumya Ranjan Mishra, other officials/authorised persons of M/s. M In connection with the said case, the in d the sum of Rs.30,00,000/- deposited in th edit with the State Bank of India, Commerc e, Bhubaneswar, and the Petitioner was dul regarding such seizure. The Petitioner ass nt need of funds for the admission of his son sted his entire savings in the aforesaid busine subsequently discovered that the accused aud by failing to supply bio-diesel as adv . Accordingly, he approached the learned r seeking release of the Letter of Credit u . However, upon hearing the parties, t p. 4 F.I.R is taken by l of the p. Party ith law. y No. 4 not to arty the tioner in lication Court in W.P.(C) e CID registered of the Petitioner ishra, Priyabrata s. My Own Eco , the investigating d in the form of a mmercial Branch, as duly intimated er asserts that he his son to school, ness venture, ccused firm had s advertised and earned S.D.J.M., dit under Section ties, the learned CRLMC No.664 of Magistrate declin application to be n Aggrieved Revision No. 50 Bhubaneswar, wh Revision No. 22 o Judge-cum-Specia court, by judgme petition. Being dis courts below, the P this Court by filin said amount. 5. Mr. Chadh course of hearing, manner in which advertisements in pursuant to which in the form of a Le deposit of Rs.15,0 instalments to the b Learned co the agreement dat company failed to contended that the upon the Petitione persons, and that i to supply Indizel of 2021 declined to release the said amount, h o be not maintainable. rieved thereby, the Petitioner preferred o. 50 of 2021 before the learned Sessi r, which, upon transfer, was renumbered a . 22 of 2021 and heard by the learned Add Special Judge, CBI-II, Bhubaneswar. The judgment dated 19.03.2021, dismissed th ing dissatisfied with the aforesaid orders pas , the Petitioner has invoked the inherent jur y filing the present application seeking rel Chadha, learned counsel for the Petitioner, aring, inter alia, drew the attention of this C hich M/s. My Own Eco Energy Private Lim nts inviting applications for grant of r which the Petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. of a Letter of Credit, in addition to a refundab Rs.15,00,000/- remitted through NEFT/RTG to the bank account of the accused company. ned counsel further submitted that despite e nt dated 01.12.2017 between the parties, t iled to supply the products in terms there hat the accused company had practised frau etitioner but also upon several other simila that it had no intention either to award ret dizel bio-products. According to learned c p. 5 unt, holding the ferred Criminal Sessions Judge, ered as Criminal d Addl. Sessions . The revisional d the revision ers passed by the ent jurisdiction of ng release of the tioner, during the this Court to the Limited floated of retailership, of Rs.30,00,000/- fundable security T/RTGS in five pany. spite execution of rties, the accused s thereof. It was ed fraud not only similarly placed rd retailership or rned counsel, the CRLMC No.664 of amount deposited Credit remains un prejudicial to the i is no possibility of alleged fraudulent multiple FIRs have It was furt Court in W.P.(C) accused company Leave to Appeal ( opposing the Petit were urged; how accept such conten 6. Per contra behalf of Opposite Limited, vehemen Chadha, learned co that the present ap inasmuch as the d which provides f Petitioner is at lib relief before the submitted that the wholly unfounded is not entitled to allegations of fra According to lear of 2021 osited by the Petitioner under the Standby ins unutilised and its continued retention i o the interests of the Petitioner, particularly ility of the business being carried forward in dulent conduct of the accused company, aga s have also been registered. as further submitted that the directions issu .P.(C) No. 16019 of 2019 were challeng pany before the Hon’ble Supreme Court peal (C) No.7380-7381 of 2022, wherein t e Petitioner’s claim for release of the afores ; however, the Hon’ble Supreme Court d contentions. contra, Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel app pposite Party No.2-M/s. My Own Eco Ene hemently opposed the submissions advanc rned counsel for the Petitioner. He contended ent application is not maintainable in its pr e dispute arises out of the terms of the ides for resolution through arbitration, an at liberty to invoke such remedy or seek e the competent forum. Learned couns the allegations of fraud levelled by the Pe unded and premature. It was argued that the led to seek release of the amount in q of fraud during the pendency of the inv o learned counsel, the impugned order pas p. 6 tandby Letter of ntion is seriously ularly when there ard in view of the y, against whom ns issued by this hallenged by the Court in Special erein the grounds aforesaid amount ourt declined to el appearing on Energy Private dvanced by Mr. tended, inter alia, its present form, of the agreement, on, and that the seek appropriate counsel further the Petitioner are hat the Petitioner in question on the investigation. er passed by the CRLMC No.664 of learned trial court any interference by 7. Admittedly Magistrate and the amount lying with pursuant to the dep between the Petitio record, and as is u respective parties, advertisement in t applications for gr diesel. Induced by a retail outlet in t Station under Jaj Rs.2,00,000/-, and consideration of h was thereafter ex agreement, the P security amount of a sum of Rs.30,00 (SBLC) in accord the accused firm n amounts deposited further transpired Signature Tower, P communication fro it impossible for th of 2021 court is in consonance with law and does n nce by this Court. ittedly, the Petitioner had approached both nd the Revisional Court seeking release of g with the State Bank of India, Commerc the deposit made in terms of the agreement e Petitioner and the accused firm. From a per as is undisputed from the submissions advan arties, it is evident that the accused firm had nt in the Odia daily newspaper “The Samba for grant of retail outlets for its product, n ced by the said advertisement, the Petitioner et in the name and style of M/s. Shree Du er Jajpur Tahasil, deposited an applicati , and further paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000 n of his application. An agreement between ter executed on 01.12.2017. In terms o the Petitioner deposited an interest-free unt of Rs.15,00,000/- in five instalments an 00,000/- in the form of a Standby Lette accordance with Clause-7 of the agreement firm neither awarded the retailership nor re posited by the Petitioner despite repeated spired that the office of the accused firm ower, Pahala, was subsequently closed, and n ion from the accused firm was forthcoming for the Petitioner to pursue the proposed ret p. 7 does not warrant both the learned ase of the seized mercial Branch, ment entered into a perusal of the advanced by the rm had floated an Sambad” inviting uct, namely bio- tioner applied for Durga Filling plication fee of 00,000/- towards tween the parties rms of the said free refundable nts and furnished Letter of Credit ement. However, nor refunded the eated requests. It firm located at , and no effective oming, rendering sed retailership. CRLMC No.664 of Being und attempting to e Rs.30,00,000/- to Court by filing a issued therein, suc amount of Rs.30,0 an SBLC with the House, Ashok Na the directions of th a complaint, which No. 11 of 2019. 8. The afores accused firm befor Appeal (C) Nos. Supreme Court de of the fact that sev firm, and granted with law in the pen “Since in dated 12.0 the investig that simila states as w it necess jurisdiction India” 9. Consequen Crime Branch P.S lying with the St of 2021 g under the apprehension that the accused to encash or transfer the SBLC a to unknown entities, the Petitioner appro ing a writ petition. By virtue of the interim n, such attempt was stalled, as a result of s.30,00,000/- deposited by the Petitioner in ith the State Bank of India, Commercial Bra ok Nagar, Bhubaneswar remained frozen. P s of this Court to lodge an FIR, the Petitione , which was registered as CID Crime Branch aforesaid action of the Petitioner was challen before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Speci Nos. 7380-7381 of 2022; however, th urt declined to entertain the said petitions, at several FIRs had been registered against t anted liberty to the Petitioner to proceed in the pending criminal case, as follows: in pursuance of the order of High C 12.09.2019, an F.I.R. has been registered estigation is in progress, coupled with the imilar F.I.Rs. have been registered in o as well on similar allegations, we do not d cessary to exercise our discretion ction under Article 136 of the Constitutio sequently, during the course of investigati ch P.S. Case No. 11 of 2019, the sum of Rs. the State Bank of India, Commercial Bran p. 8 ccused firm was LC amount of r approached this interim directions sult of which the ner in the form of ial Branch, IDCO zen. Pursuant to titioner submitted Branch P.S. Case challenged by the Special Leave to er, the Hon’ble tions, taking note ainst the accused ed in accordance h Court red and the fact in other ot deem etionary tution of stigation in CID of Rs.30,00,000/- l Branch, IDCO CRLMC No.664 of House, Ashok Nag intimated to the Pe It is the Rs.30,00,000/- wa under the proposed ever made, and in agreement, the c commissioning of Petitioner has no contractual relation In this re relevance and read “Effective become eff the dealer force for a be renewe accordanc 10. In the mat West Bengal and Hon’ble Supreme C “8. In Par Court held: “12. Wh 482 of t This pow purpose court or a comp depends Whether of 2021 ok Nagar, Bhubaneswar was seized by the I. the Petitioner by his banker. the case of the Petitioner that the was furnished solely as security to ens oposed retailership. However, since no such and in view of the fact that, as per the te the commencement thereof was contin ing of the dealership, the SBLC furnish as no operative consequence in the cont elationship between the parties. his regard, Clause-5(i) of the agreemen d reads as follows:- tive Date and Term: This Agreement s e effective from the date of commissionin alership (First Supply) and shall remain for an initial period of seven years and s newed for the same period thereafter ance with the terms of this Agreement.” e matter of Usha Chakraborty & another and another reported in (2023) 15 SCC reme Court held as follows:- In Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand held: (SCC p. 676, para 12) 2. While exercising its jurisdiction under S 2 of the Code the High Court has to be cau is power is to be used sparingly and only f rpose of preventing abuse of the process o urt or otherwise to secure ends of justice. W complaint discloses a criminal offence o pends upon the nature of the facts alleged th hether essential ingredients of criminal offen p. 9 the I.O., as duly the amount of to ensure supply such supply was the terms of the contingent upon urnished by the e context of the eement assumes nt shall oning of main in nd shall after in her vs. State of 5 SCC 135, the akhand, this nder Section be cautious. only for the cess of any ice. Whether ence or not eged therein. l offence are CRLMC No.664 of present o complain have a c whether nature is situation adopted should n to preven ××× 10. In Kap held that purpose of permitted t 11. In the d two-Judge provisions under: (SC “102.... informat taken at entirety make ou (2) Whe report an FIR do n an inves 156(1) o Magistra the Code (3) Whe the FIR support of any accused. (4) Wh constitut non-cog permitte of 2021 esent or not has to be judged by the High Co mplaint disclosing civil transactions may ve a criminal texture. But the High Court mu hether a dispute which is essentially of a ture is given a cloak of criminal offence. In tuation, if a civil remedy is available and is, i ed as has happened in this case, the High ould not hesitate to quash the criminal proce prevent abuse of process of the court.” In Kapil Aggarwal v. Sanjay Sharma, this that Section 482 is designed to achiev of ensuring that criminal proceedings a itted to generate into weapons of harassment n the decision in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Judge Bench of this Court considered the sta isions as also the earlier decisions and h r: (SCC pp. 378-79, para 102) 02.... (1) Where the allegations made in th formation report or the complaint, even if th ken at their face value and accepted in tirety do not prima facie constitute any offe out a case against the accused. ) Where the allegations in the first inform port and other materials, if any, accompanyi R do not disclose a cognizable offence, just investigation by police officers under S 6(1) of the Code except under an order agistrate within the purview of Section 155 e Code. ) Where the uncontroverted allegations ma e FIR or complaint and the evidence collec pport of the same do not disclose the comm any offence and make out a case again cused. ) Where the allegations in the FIR d nstitute a cognizable offence but constitute cognizable offence, no investigatio rmitted by a police officer without an orde p. 10 igh Court. A s may also urt must see y of a civil ce. In such a nd is, in fact, High Court proceedings , this Court achieve the ings are not ssment. hajan Lal, a the statutory and held as in the first n if they are ted in their y offence or information panying the e, justifying der Section order of a on 155(2) of ns made in collected in commission against the IR do not titute only a tigation is n order of a CRLMC No.664 of Magistra the Code (5) Wh complain on the b reach a j for proce (6) Whe any of concerne instituted proceedi provisio providin aggrieve (7) Wh attended is malici wreaking to spite h ××× 20. As no commissio 423, 467, appellants. ingredients would reve did not car alleged off the compla on the resp that the app in fear of putting him induced h security. T alleged off 467, 468, attract the the nature of 2021 agistrate as contemplated under Section 155 e Code. ) Where the allegations made in the F mplaint are so absurd and inherently impro the basis of which no prudent person can ach a just conclusion that there is sufficient g r proceeding against the accused. ) Where there is an express legal bar engraf y of the provisions of the Code or th ncerned (under which a criminal proceed stituted) to the institution and continuance oceedings and/or where there is a s ovision in the Code or the concerned oviding efficacious redress for the grievance grieved party. ) Where a criminal proceeding is man tended with mala fide and/or where the proce maliciously instituted with an ulterior moti reaking vengeance on the accused and with a spite him due to private and personal grudge As noticed hereinbefore, the respondent a mission of offences under Sections 323, 384 467, 468, 420 and 120-B IPC agains llants. A bare perusal of the said allegation a dients to attract them, as adverted to herein ld reveal that the allegations are vague and ot carry the essential ingredients to constitu ed offences. There is absolutely no allegat omplaint that the appellants herein had cause he respondent so also, they did not reveal the appellants had intentionally put the respo ar of injury either to himself or another ng him under such fear or injury, disho ced him to deliver any property or va rity. The same is the position with respect ed offences punishable under Sections 406 468, 420 and 120-B IPC. The ingredie ct the alleged offence referred to hereinbefo nature of the allegations contained in p. 11 on 155(2) of the FIR or improbable on can ever cient ground engrafted in or the Act roceeding is uance of the a specific cerned Act, vance of the manifestly e proceeding r motive for with a view grudge. dent alleged 3, 384, 406, against the ation and the hereinbefore ue and they onstitute the allegation in caused hurt eveal a case e respondent other or by dishonestly or valuable spect to the ns 406. 423. gredients to inbefore and ned in the CRLMC No.664 of application make it cl specific al respect of t 21. The fa genesis as nothing bu dispute inv appellants criminal o when the available c decision in have quash abuse of concealmen 22. In the fact that in civil nature jurisdiction is pending, fact that th use the crim against the respondent 2015, he g against his School Ma that he fil investigatio of a case th informed o would only 23. For all that this c Section 482 the directio application thereof. A permitting of 2021 ication filed by the respondent would undou e it clear that the respondent had failed to ific allegation against the appellants here ect of the aforesaid offences. The factual position thus would reveal th sis as also the purpose of criminal proceedin ing but the aforesaid incident and further th ute involved is essentially of civil nature llants b and the respondents have given a cl inal offence in the issue. In such circum n the respondent had already resorted t lable civil remedy and it is pending, going sion in Paramjeet Batra, the High Court quashed the criminal proceedings to preve e of the process of the Court but fo ealment. In the aforesaid circumstances, coupled wi that in respect of the issue involved, which nature, the respondent had already approach dictional civil court by instituting a civil suit nding, there can be no doubt with respect that the attempt on the part of the responden he criminal proceedings as weapon of haras nst the appellants. The indisputable facts th ondent has filed the pending title suit in th , he got no case that he obtained an interim nst his removal from the office of Secretary ol Managing Committee as also the truste he filed the stated application for an ord stigation only in April 2017 together with ab case that despite such removal he got a right med of the affairs of the school and also the only support the said conclusion. or all these reasons, we are of the considered this case invites invocation of the power ion 482 CrPC to quash the FIR registered ba irection of the Magistrate Court in the afore ication and all further proceeding in purs of. Also, we have no hesitation to hold itting continuance of the criminal procee p. 12 undoubtedly led to make ts herein in eal that the ceedings are ther that the ture. The n a cloak of ircumstance rted to the going by the ourt would prevent the but for the led with the which is of proached the il suit and it spect to the ondent is to f harassment acts that the t in the year nterim relief retary of the trusteeship, n order for ith absence a right to get lso the trust, sidered view ower under red based on e aforestated n pursuance o hold that proceedings CRLMC No.664 of against the would resu in miscarri 11. Though th sustainability of th that the underlying by the Hon’ble S process ought no mechanism in esse petitioner’s depos would amount to s 12. It is an adm no commencemen the advertisement amount deposited was admittedly de proposed retailers Petitioner by the ac the Bank has rema purpose except investigation. 13. In such c amount with the B indicating that the the same, would detriment of the P this Court, and in of 2021 nst the appellants in the aforesaid circums ld result in abuse of the process of court an iscarriage of justice.” ugh this Court is not called upon to ex y of the criminal proceedings, it cannot be l erlying transaction is contractual in nature. A ’ble Supreme Court in the above decisio ht not to be permitted to operate as in essentially civil disputes. Continued reten deposit, despite non-commencement of th nt to such misuse. an admitted position between the parties tha cement or commissioning of the dealership ement floated by the accused firm, notwiths osited by the Petitioner with the Bank. The s dly deposited with the sole intention of se tailership, which, in fact, was never awar the accused firm. Consequently, the amoun s remained unutilised and continues to do so, cept remaining under seizure for the uch circumstances, the mere retention o the Bank, in the absence of any material at the accused firm has any lien or subsisting ould result in its continued stagnation to f the Petitioner’s interest. In the considered and in the best interest of the matter in di p. 13 ircumstances urt and also to examine the ot be lost sight of ture. As observed ecision, criminal e as a coercive d retention of the of the contract, ies that there was rship pursuant to twithstanding the The said amount of securing the r awarded to the mount lying with do so, serving no r the sake of tion of the said terial prima facie sisting right over tion to the clear idered opinion of r in dispute, it is CRLMC No.664 of therefore necessary Petitioner on an in the amount and ma condition that, in t of any adjudicatio as and when direct 14. The amoun the form of a Stan Commercial Branc in favour of the conditions indicat undertaking before directions that may the said amount. 15. It is made solely to the disp construed as an ex case pending inve accordance with la Bijay of 2021 cessary that the said amount be released in fa n an interim basis. The Petitioner shall take and may utilise the same for his purposes, su at, in the event the amount becomes the sub ication between the parties, the same shall directed by any competent court. amount of Rs.30,00,000/- deposited by the P a Standby Letter of Credit with the State Ban Branch, IDCO House, Bhubaneswar shall the Petitioner on an interim basis, sub ndicated hereinabove. The Petitioner shall before the learned court below to abide by at may be issued by the court concerned wit made clear that the observations herein, e disposal of the present application and s an expression of opinion on the merits of t g investigation, which shall proceed indepe with law. (Chittaranjan Das Judge p. 14 d in favour of the ll take custody of ses, subject to the he subject matter shall be restored y the Petitioner in ate Bank of India, shall be released s, subject to the shall furnish an de by any further with regard to , are confined and shall not be ts of the criminal independently in Dash)