Dipankar Haldar vs. State Of Odisha

This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The Petitioner being in custody in connection with Malkangiri P.S. Case No.382 of 2024 corresponding to G.R. Case No.474 of 2024 pending in the court of the learned S.D.J.M., Malkangiri, registered for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 420/ 294/ 506/ 34 of the I.P.C, has filed this petition for his release on bail.

The prosecution case in brief is that on 01.06.2024 at about 7.20 P.M. the complainant reported that near about 17 months ago she meet with Dipankar Haldar and his wife Sushila Haldar of village M.V. - 09 of Malkangiri. They approached her to give Government job at CGL CT GST to her son. After given the lure the alleged person introduced her with one Manoj Sutar of Bhubaneswar. Said Manoj Sutar had given assurance for the job and asked her for some money. On 05.01.2023, the complainant sent Rs.3,00,000/- on 05.01.2023, Rs.7,00,000/- on l0.01.2023 and gain Rs.7,00,000/- on 21.01.2023 in total Rs.17,00,000/- to SBI Account Number 42198319656. When the complainant asked for return of her money as her purpose was not achieved, the alleged person abused and threatened her in dire consequences. Hence, the FIR has been lodged.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no incriminating material available against the present Petitioner to implicate him in the alleged offences. The Petitioner is languishing in custody in this case since 06.01.2025. He further submits that there is no direct evidence against the petitioner. Neither the informant nor any of the witnesses, including witnesses to the occurrence, have levelled any specific allegation against the Petitioner. He further contends that investigation in this case is completed and charge sheet has already been submitted by the Investigating Agency and as such there is no chance of tampering with the prosecution evidence. Hence, he submits that the Petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the Petitioner.

Considering the facts and circumstances, and keeping in view the submissions of the learned counsel for the Petitioner, this Court is of the view that the Petitioner should be granted bail by the court in seisin over the matter in the aforesaid case, on some stringent terms and conditions with further conditions that:- i. The Petitioner shall appear before the local Police Station on every Monday between 10 A.M. to 1.00 P.M.; ii. The Petitioner shall not indulge himself in any criminal offence while on bail; iii. The Petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses in any manner; and iv. The Petitioner shall plant 200 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 the land for plantation.

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 or not.

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 saplings for a period of two years.

The District Nursery/District Forest Officer (D.F.O.) shall extend assistance to the Petitioner by supplying the necessary saplings.

Accordingly, this BLAPL is disposed of.