The Orissa High Court has granted bail to the couple that allegedly impersonated as relatives of PM Modi's Principal Secretary with an intention to cheat and pressurize the Senior Officials and exert undue influence on them.

The Court was considering Bail Petitions filed under Section 483 BNSS in case registered under Sections 329(3), 319(2), 318(4), 62 read with 3(5) BNS.

The single bench of Justice Radha Krishna Pattanaik observed, "....the investigation with regard to tax evasion or any such offences to have been committed for which the Enforcement Directorate has taken cognizance of, the Court is of the view that all such transactions since are on record and in the meantime, the preliminary chargesheet is filed, the facts are distinguishable from the decision in the case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy. Furthermore, the Court finds that substantial part of investigation to be over since the preliminary chargesheet is filed in the meantime. The petitioners are local residents and are involved in running business with companies located in the State and outside, hence, there is a remote chance of tampering with the evidence. In so far as the MoU, the company in question did not allege any such mischief regarding impersonation."

The Petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate S. Ch. Mohapatra while the Respondent was represented by Additional Government Advocate P.S. Nayak.

Facts of the Case

The Police was informed that the Petitioners visited the premises of Kalinga Institute and met few senior officials and during such visit, they introduced themselves to be the daughter and son-in-law respectively of Mr. P.K. Mishra, Principal Secretary to the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India and given the high-profile nature of claim and inconsistencies in their statements and behaviour, such claim was found to be suspicious. Following this, investigation was commenced with examination of the informant and during and in course of such investigation, one morphed photograph of the accused. In course of further investigation, it was revealed that the accused managed to create the morphed picture with some assistance. It was alleged that the Petitioners with an intention to cheat and pressurize the senior officials and exert undue influence on them, committed such mischief and hence, a prima facie case was established for having committed the alleged offences.

In course of such investigation, the offices of other accused were searched to ascertain any such documents regarding fraudulent transactions and accordingly, seizures were made in respect of agreements, one MoU etc. It was alleged that the accused is in the habit of morphing her pictures with influential people and using it to introduce them to others as their relatives. The investigation revealed the details about the transactions of the companies run by the Petitioners. One of the accused was also found to be involved in a case registered under Section 506 read with 34 IPC and Section 3 SC & ST (PoA) Act. Due to suppression of having a police record against her and as the name of the accused was changed, which was concealed before the Passport authorities, a case was registered under Sections 417, 419, 420, 468 and 471 IPC read with Section 12 of the Passport Act.

The investigation revealed that in the year 2022, the petitioners signed an MoU with BSL, Bokaro, a company of Vedanta Group for CSR rehabilitation project worth of Rs.283 crores in the name of four companies. It was alleged that in view of the high value project in favour of the companies managed by the Petitioners, a reasonable suspicion regarding fraud was entertained as a means to acquire the same.

Senior Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the offences are triable by a Magistrate First Class and maximum punishment prescribed for the same is up to seven years of imprisonment and that apart, both are permanent residents staying within the limits of the PS and hence, there is no chance of their absconding or avoiding or tampering with the evidence. He submitted that none of the witnesses examined ever stated anything adverse against the accused hence, no case of cheating by personation is established especially for the purpose of fetching high value contracts. The Counsel submitted that if any case is made out, it would be one of misrepresentation but not impersonation for the purpose of cheating or attempting to cheat someone and therefore, under such circumstances, there is no justification to detain the accused.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset referred to Supreme Court's decision in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy (supra), wherein it was held that the economic offences having deep rooted conspiracy and involving huge loss of public fund need to be handled sternly and while granting bail, the Court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation and evidence in support thereof; severity of punishment; character of the accused; circumstances peculiar to the accused; reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with and the larger interest of public with such other similar considerations.

It pointed out that the complaint is not about cheating by personation lodged by the company with whom an MoU has been entered into and executed. It went on to distinguish facts of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy (supra) from the present case

"....the Court finds that transactions have taken place on paper with regard to the contract with the alleged company in respect of which necessary seizures of all such relevant documents have been made. It is not that the petitioners have so much of clout and status to influence the investigation and therefore, if released, might tamper with evidence. That apart, the financial transaction has already been investigated upon, especially with regard to ESL, Bokaro. Since high value transactions have taken place and it was in running the businesses of the companies, the suspicion has been entertained. Whether such suspicion is true or false is only to be exhumed during further investigation," it observed.

The Petitions were accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Bishnupriya Chand @ Hansita Abhilipsa vs. State of Odisha

Appearances:

Petitioner- Senior Advocate S. Ch. Mohapatra, Advocate D. Mund

Respondent- Additional Government Advocate P.S. Nayak.

Click here to read/ download Order









Orissa High CourtJustice R K Pattanaik

Sheetal Joon