IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.10298 of 2024 Saroj Mohanty …. Petitioner(s) Mr. B. K. Ragada, Advocate on behalf of Mr. D. K. Panda, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party(s) Mr. S. Panda, ASC Mr. J. P. Patra, Advocate for the Informant CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Order No. ORDER 22.01.2025 09. 1. This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 2. The petitioner is an accused in connection with EOW Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No.4 of 2024 corresponding to C.T. Case No.15 of 2024 registered for the alleged commission of the offences under Sections 408/467/468/471/120-B of I.P.C. pending in the Court of the learned P.O., designated Court under the OPID Act, Cuttack. The petitioner had approached before the learned Court below praying for grant of bail. The learned Court below vide its order dated 28.09.2024 has rejected the bail application of the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. praying for enlargement on bail. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner on instruction from the petitioner, submits that, except the present bail application, no other bail application of the petitioner is pending in any other Court relating to the aforesaid F.I.R. 4. The prosecution case in short is that, the accused-petitioner was working as an Accountant in the office of M/s. Sealcoat Structural Works Private Limited whereas the informant was the Managing Director of the said company. The petitioner was working in the said company since the year 2007. The aim and object of the company is to construct roads repairing of bridge and building as well as distributor of some multinational company and the nature of job of the accused-petitioner was to look after all related bank transactions, tax matters i.e. income tax, sales tax, service tax, finalization of balance sheet and profit and loss of the accounts with Chartered Accountant and was taking decisions solely regarding all financial transactions.. It is alleged that during the financial years 2015-16 to 2017-18, the petitioner has misappropriated a sum of Rs.2,63,09,860/- by forging the informant’s signatures and by making double transactions with regard to the NEFT/RTGS by manipulating authorization letters and the cheque issued to bank towards payment to his accounts or his relatives accounts. Hence, the F.I.R. 5. After investigation, preliminary charge-sheet has been filed on 03.09.2024. Perusal of the charge-sheet, reveals that there is a direct transaction of Rs.18,27,540/-in the account of the present petitioner. Although the allegations in the F.I.R. is regarding the misappropriation of funds amounting to Rs.2,35,02,835/- but the investigation reveals that there is direct transfer of amount from the company account to the petitioner’s account to the tune of Rs.18, 27,540/-. 6. Mr. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioner on instruction from his client makes an offer to deposit Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs) to begin with and submits that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail on depositing Rs.3,00,000/- and his client would make all endeavor to see that the entire defrauded amount is refunded by him in due course. 7. Mr. Patra, learned counsel for the Informant vehemently opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and submitted that the defrauded amount is very huge and the offer to deposit Rs.3,00,000/- by the petitioner is meagre amount. The company has faced huge loss at the instance of the petitioner. Hence, he is not entitled to bail. 8. Regard being had to the period of custody from 09.05.2024 and the petitioner is facing the charges for the offence punishable under Sections 408/467/468/471/120-B of I.P.C., I am inclined to admit the petitioner on bail, subject to the petitioner depositing Rs.3,00,000/- before the Court below as has been offered by Mr. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioner without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. Hence, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail by the Court in seisin over the matter in the aforesaid case on such terms and conditions as it would deem just and proper, subject to the following additional conditions:- (i) Since preliminary charge-sheet has been submitted and the investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. is open, the petitioner shall appear before the I.O. of the present case regularly as and when he is called for so that the investigation is concluded. (ii) He shall appear before the trial Court on each date on which the case is posted for trial. Page 5 of 5 (iii) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court till disposal of the trial. (iv) He shall not tamper with the evidence in any manner whatsoever. Violation of any of the conditions shall entail consideration for cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioners. In the event, any of the bail conditions are violated by the petitioners, the prosecution is given liberty to move appropriate application before the Court below for recalling the concession of bail. If such application is moved, the trial Court should decide the application on its own merit. 9. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of. (S.S. Mishra) Judge Swarna