Facts of the Case

The petitioners, Amit Kumar Mishra and another, approached the Orissa High Court seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, apprehending arrest for their alleged involvement in offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 324, 420 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The petitioners’ case was that they had no connection with the alleged offences and that the entire allegation was directed against Suraj Kumar Laguri and Rohit Mahanta. They further claimed that they themselves had been defrauded by Rohit Mahanta and Suraj Kumar Laguri and had lodged a complaint before the IIC, Shree Lingaraj Police Station.

A significant aspect of the case concerned money allegedly credited to the account of Petitioner No. 2, Shreepriya Mishra. The petitioners contended that money credited to her account had been transmitted onward to the account of Rohit Kumar Mahanta and that no part of the money was retained by the petitioners against providing services to anybody.

The State, however, relied upon the investigation and bank statement material reflecting the manner in which money had been credited to Shreepriya Mishra’s account. The High Court noted from the record that, on a series of occasions, the complainant Manas Ranjan Das had remitted money to Petitioner No. 2 during the period from 22.09.2020 to 14.12.2020.

The record also referred to the petitioners’ submission that Amit Kumar Mishra was proprietor of an entity under the name and style of Jay Maa Tarinee Enterprises, stated to be engaged in activities including manpower supply and automobile renting services, with GST registration and a UDYAM certificate under MSME, Government of India.

After considering the alleged flow of funds, the submissions of both sides and the materials on record, the Court found strong prima facie material concerning the petitioners’ conduct and alleged nexus with Rohit Kumar Mahanta.

Issues Involved

The principal issues before the Orissa High Court were:

  1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC in relation to alleged offences under Sections 294, 323, 324, 420 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC.
  2. Whether the petitioners’ contention that the allegations were entirely aimed at Suraj Kumar Laguri and Rohit Mahanta was sufficient to disconnect them from the alleged offences.
  3. Whether the fact that money credited to Shreepriya Mishra’s account was allegedly transferred onward to Rohit Kumar Mahanta negated the petitioners’ involvement or, conversely, indicated a nexus between them.
  4. Whether the bank statement and the repeated remittances made by complainant Manas Ranjan Das to Petitioner No. 2 constituted strong prima facie material against the petitioners.
  5. Whether the petitioners’ claim that they themselves had been defrauded and had lodged a police complaint justified grant of anticipatory bail.
  6. Whether, considering the nature of allegations, circumstances, seriousness and gravity of the offences, discretionary protection from arrest should be granted.

Petitioners’ Arguments

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were in no way connected with the case, because the entire allegation was directed against Suraj Kumar Laguri and Rohit Mahanta.

It was further argued that the petitioners themselves had been defrauded by Rohit Mahanta and Suraj Kumar Laguri and had lodged a complaint before the IIC, Shree Lingaraj Police Station. On this basis, they claimed that they should not be treated as participants in the alleged wrongdoing.

The petitioners also contended that money allegedly credited to the account of Shreepriya Mishra had been transmitted to the account of Rohit Kumar Mahanta. Their case was that no part of the money was retained by the petitioners against providing services to anyone.

A further submission was made concerning Amit Kumar Mishra’s business/entity, Jay Maa Tarinee Enterprises, which was stated to have an object of providing manpower supply and automobile renting services and to possess GST registration and a UDYAM certificate under MSME, Government of India.

In substance, the petitioners attempted to establish that the financial transactions did not demonstrate their criminal involvement and that the actual allegations concerned other persons.

Respondent / State’s Arguments

The learned counsel for the State opposed the anticipatory bail application and submitted that the investigation disclosed a bank statement reflecting the manner in which money had been credited to the account of Petitioner No. 2, Shreepriya Mishra.

The State argued that the petitioners’ own submission—that money credited to Shreepriya Mishra’s account had thereafter been remitted to Rohit Kumar Mahanta—indicated a nexus between the petitioners and Rohit Kumar Mahanta.

On this basis, the State contended that no leniency should be shown to the petitioners in the matter of anticipatory bail.

Court Order / Findings

The Orissa High Court considered the rival submissions and perused the case record made available through the learned counsel for the State. The Court found that, on a series of occasions, complainant Manas Ranjan Das had remitted money to Petitioner No. 2, Shreepriya Mishra, between 22.09.2020 and 14.12.2020.

The Court rejected, at the prima facie stage, the petitioners’ attempt to explain the transactions merely by stating that the money deposited with Shreepriya Mishra had been transmitted to Rohit Kumar Mahanta without any nexus to the alleged misconduct. The Court characterised that explanation, in the context of the record before it, as a “myth” and found strong prima facie material indicating the petitioners’ conduct and involvement in collection of money against providing services.

The Court also considered the submission regarding Amit Kumar Mishra’s entity, Jay Maa Tarinee Enterprises, its stated business activities, GST registration and UDYAM certificate. However, the Court observed that these might represent one area in which the firm operated, while the transfer of money to Shreepriya Mishra’s account and onward transmission, if any, to Rohit Kumar Mahanta prima facie suggested a nexus between the petitioners and Rohit Kumar Mahanta in alluring people by offering services against money.

Keeping in view:

  • the submissions of the parties;
  • the nature of allegations emerging from the materials on record;
  • the surrounding circumstances;
  • the seriousness of the allegations; and
  • the gravity of the offences,

the High Court held that it was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail was rejected, and ABLAPL No. 14113 of 2022 was dismissed.

Important Clarification

The most important clarification is that the High Court’s findings were made in the context of an anticipatory bail proceeding under Section 438 CrPC and on the basis of prima facie material available at that stage.

The order should not be interpreted as a final determination of guilt or a conviction of the petitioners for offences under Sections 294, 323, 324, 420, 506 or 34 IPC. The Court was deciding only whether discretionary pre-arrest bail protection should be granted.

The Court’s reference to a strong prima facie material and an apparent nexus was relevant to the bail determination. Final criminal liability, if prosecuted, would remain subject to investigation, evidence, trial and adjudication in accordance with law.

Another important clarification is that the mere existence of GST registration or UDYAM/MSME certification was not treated by the Court as sufficient to displace the prima facie implications arising from the financial transactions and other materials considered at the anticipatory bail stage.

Sections / Legal Provisions Involved

Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Anticipatory bail; the petitioners sought protection from arrest under this provision.

Section 294, Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Alleged offence concerning obscene acts or words in public, as included in the offence allegations recorded in the order.

Section 323, Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.

Section 324, Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.

Section 420, Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property; central to the alleged money-related wrongdoing.

Section 506, Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Punishment for criminal intimidation.

Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

GST Registration and UDYAM/MSME Certificate – These were factual matters referred to in the petitioners’ submissions concerning Jay Maa Tarinee Enterprises. No substantive provision of the GST law or MSME law was adjudicated by the Court.

Link to download the order -

https://mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783067934_388compressed.pdf 

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.