Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Orissa · body

2025 DAILYLAW 36699 (ORI)

SAMIR KUMAR LENKA v. STATE OF ODISHA

BLAPL/5364/2025 · 2025-05-30

S K Panigrahi

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 5364 of 2025 Samir Kumar Lenka ..…... Petitioner Mr. Maheswar Jati, Adv. -Versus- State of Odisha ………. Opposite Party Mr. Tapan Kumar Dash, AGA CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI ORDER 30.05.2025 Order No. 01. FIR No. Dated Police Station Case No. and Courts’ Name Sections 259 22.04.2025 Jagatpur G.R. Case No.613 of 2025 pending in the court of learned J.M.F.C.(R), Cuttack Sections 419/420/467/468/471 of IPC 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The Petitioner being in custody in Jagatpur P.S. Case No. 259 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. Case No.613 of 2025 pending in the court of learned J.M.F.C.(R), Cuttack, registered for the Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 31-May-2025 12:26:44 Signature Not Verified alleged commission of offences under Sections 419/420/467/468/471 of IPC, has filed this petition for his release on bail. 4. The informant, Dusasana Rout, lodged a written report at Jagatpur Police Station, Cuttack, alleging that the petitioner fraudulently obtained a sum of ₹4,00,000 from him under the pretext of securing employment for his son at ARC, Charbatia, Choudwar. The amount was paid in two installments— ₹2,00,000 on 30.11.2022 and another ₹2,00,000 on 27.04.2023. Subsequently, the petitioner sent forged appointment documents to the informant by post. Upon growing suspicious, the informant visited the ARC, Charbatia office to verify the claim and learned that no such appointment had been made, and the documents were fake. Despite repeated demands for the return of the money, the petitioner allegedly avoided repayment under various pretexts. Accordingly, the present case was registered. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no involvement whatsoever with the offences alleged by the prosecution. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a government servant and has been in custody since 22.04.2025. Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 31-May-2025 12:26:44 Signature Not Verified In view of the foregoing, it is prayed that the petitioner may be released on bail. 6. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations. 7. Without entering into the merits of the case and considering the facts and circumstances involved, it is directed that the petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case upon depositing a sum of ₹4,00,000 (Rupees Four Lakhs), which shall be invested in an interest-bearing account with any nationalized bank. The investment shall be made subject to such stringent terms and conditions as the learned court having seisin over the matter may deem just and proper, along with the following further conditions::- i. the petitioner shall not indulge himself in any criminal offence while on bail; and ii. the petitioner shall not tamper the evidence of the prosecution evidence in any manner. iii. The Petitioner, after the onset of monsoon (between the months of July and August, 2025), shall plant 100 saplings of local varieties, such as mango, neem, tamarind, etc., around his village on Government land, community land, or private land in the possession of the petitioner or his family members. In the event that suitable land is unavailable, the Revenue Authority shall assist in identifying land for the plantation. Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 31-May-2025 12:26:44 Violation of any of the above conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail. 8. The I.I.C. of the concerned police station, in coordination with the local Forest Officer, shall monitor whether the Petitioner has planted the saplings as required. 9. It is further directed that the Petitioner shall file an affidavit before the local police station, confirming that the saplings have been planted and that the petitioner will maintain those plants for a period of two years. 10. The District Nursery/District Forest Officer (D.F.O.) shall extend assistance to the petitioner by supplying the necessary saplings. 11. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of. ( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Judge Murmu