DILLIP KUMAR NAYAK Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with EOW PS Case No.13 of 2025 corresponding to CT Case No.16 of 2025 pending in the file of learned PO OPID Court, Cuttack, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.406/420/467/468/471 of IPC, on the main allegation of deceitfully inducing the informant and his wife with false assurance to provide good returns for investment in real-estate business and in the process, managing to dupe them for Rs.12,42,00,000.00 (Rupees Twelve Crores Forty Two Lakhs only) by misappropriating the investment of the informant and his wife on the pretext of purchasing land in their name, but purchasing the land in his own name and siphoning part of the amount taken from the informant.

(2.) In the course of hearing, Mr. Devashis Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation on record in fact appears to be civil in nature, but has been given the colour of criminal case, when the informant has failed to obtain an injunction order against the petitioner over a civil dispute existing between them and the petitioner, therefore, having detained in custody for a substantial period may kindly be granted bail.

(3.) After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against the petitioner for duping the informant and his wife for a sum of Rs.12,42,00,000.00(Rupees Twelve Crores Forty Two Lakhs only) and right now the investigation is going on, however, this Court reminds that the statutory provisions of bail confers wide discretion on the Court either to grant or refuse bail to the applicant, but such exercise of discretion should not be arbitrary or de hors the basic principles laid down by different constitutional Courts in a catena of decision. The parameters under which the discretion has to be considered has been elucidated by the Apex Court in the decision relied on by the informant in the case of Prasanta Kumar Sarkar Vrs. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr : (2010) 14 SCC 496, wherein the Apex Court in Paragraph 9 has held as under:-