Bikramananda Mohanty vs. State Of Odisha

Facts

The petitioner, Bikramananda Mohanty, filed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438, Cr.P.C. in connection with C.T. Case No.509 of 2022, arising out of Sahadevkhunta P.S. Case No.165 of 2022. The case involves alleged offences under Sections 465/468/471/747/420/34, I.P.C. The petitioner's counsel argued that the case was filed by the informant, who is the petitioner's wife, due to marital discord and ongoing divorce proceedings. The informant's counsel contended that the petitioner had used the informant's license to execute contract works, resulting in an unpaid GST liability of Rs.3,58,358/-.

Held

The Court, considering the facts and circumstances, the nature of the allegations, and the gravity of the offences, was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. However, the Court directed that if the petitioner surrenders and applies for bail before the concerned court within three weeks, he shall be released on bail subject to certain conditions. These conditions include cooperating with the investigation, attending court during trial, and not threatening or harassing the informant or her family. Additionally, the petitioner is required to deposit Rs.2,00,000/- in cash before the learned court, to be kept in an interest-earning deposit for one year, renewable until the trial concludes. The remaining amount of the GST liability is to be deposited within two months of release on bail, failing which the bail order would stand revoked. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in connection with C.T. Case No.509 of 2022, arising out of Sahadevkhunta P.S. Case No.165 of 2022, considering the allegations of forgery, cheating, and GST evasion? (Question of law and fact, turning on Sections 465, 468, 471, 747, 420, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and GST provisions). Petitioner's contentions: The case is a result of matrimonial dispute and divorce proceedings, implying a malicious prosecution. The allegations are fabricated due to marital discord. Revenue/State's contentions: The petitioner utilized the informant's license for contract works and incurred a GST liability of Rs.3,58,358/- which remains unpaid, indicating financial impropriety and potential evasion.