Amit Kumar Mishra vs. State Of Odisha

Held

The Court held that the petitioners were not entitled to anticipatory bail. The Court found that the bank statements presented by the State, showing money credited to Petitioner Shreepriya Mishra's account during the period from September 22, 2020, to December 14, 2020, contradicted the petitioners' submission that the money was merely transmitted to Rohit Kumar Mahanta without any nexus to the alleged misgiving. The Court observed that the transmission of money, if any, to Rohit Kumar Mahanta's account, coupled with the collection of money against providing services, clearly suggested a nexus between the petitioners and Rohit Kumar Mahanta in alluring people for services against payment. Considering the submissions of both parties, the nature of allegations, the materials on record, and the seriousness and gravity of the offences, the Court was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. Consequently, the prayer for bail was rejected, and the application was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioners, Amit Kumar Mishra and Shreepriya Mishra, sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. They apprehended arrest for alleged involvement in offences under Sections 294, 323, 324, 420, and 506/34 of the IPC. The petitioners claimed they were defrauded by Suraj Kumar Laguri and Rohit Mahanta and had lodged a complaint against them. They asserted that money remitted by the complainant, Manas Ranjan Das, to Shreepriya Mishra's account was subsequently transferred to Rohit Kumar Mahanta's account, and they had no direct involvement in the alleged misdeed of providing services. The State, however, presented bank statements indicating money credited to Shreepriya Mishra's account, suggesting a nexus between the petitioners and Rohit Kumar Mahanta.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with alleged offences under Sections 294, 323, 324, 420, and 506/34 of the IPC, considering their alleged involvement in collecting money against providing services? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioners argued they were not connected to the case, claiming they were themselves defrauded by Suraj Kumar Laguri and Rohit Mahanta. They stated they had lodged a complaint against these individuals and that money credited to Shreepriya Mishra's account was transmitted to Rohit Kumar Mahanta's account, with no part of it reaching the petitioners directly. They also highlighted Amit Kumar Mishra's proprietorship of Jay Maa Tarinee Enterprises, a registered society involved in manpower supply and automobile renting services, registered with GST and holding an UDYAM certificate. State's Argument: The State contended that bank statements revealed money credited to Petitioner Shreepriya Mishra's account, indicating a nexus between the petitioners and Rohit Kumar Mahanta. They argued that the submission of money being remitted to Rohit Kumar Mahanta's account, even if true, did not absolve the petitioners, as it suggested their involvement in the collection of money against purported services.