IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
BLAPL NO. 1065 OF 2019
An application under section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure in connection with Lalbag P.S. Case No.112 of 2018
which corresponds to G.R. Case No.1386 of 2018 Pending in the
Court learned S.D.J.M. (Sadar), Cuttack.
—————————-
Avinash Tripathy …….. Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Odisha ……. Opp. Party
For Petitioner: – Mr. Srinivas Mohanty
Kabita Patra
Satya Pradhan
For Informant: – Mr. Sangram Ku. Das
Bini Mishra
B.N. Mohapatra
For State of Odisha: – Mr. Purna Chandra Das
Addl. Standing Counsel
——————————-
P R E S E N T:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
—————————————————————————————————
Date of Argument: 13.03.2019 Date of Order: 14.03.2019
—————————————————————————————————
S. K. SAHOO, J. One, who falls prey to emotional blackmail, becomes
a puppet in the hands of a blackmailer. One, who does not resist
at right time, becomes the victim of repetitive harassment and
exploitation. Fear psychosis is created to manipulate and
2
paralyse the victim. One, who screams inside the heart for
suffering without a word of protest in the mouth and has no
courage to face the reality of life after telling the truth to the
close confidants and life partner, gives an opportunity to the
shrewd blackmailer to take advantage of one’s simplicity or some
mistakes which he/she might have committed in the past. Giving
a second chance to a blackmailer is like giving an extra bullet for
his gun.
The petitioner Avinash Tripathy has knocked at the
portals of this Court by filing an application under section 439 of
Cr.P.C. in connection with Lalbag P.S. Case No.112 of 2018
registered under sections 294, 354, 420, 506 read with section
34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 66-D and 67-E of the
Information Technology Act, 2000 which corresponds to G.R.
Case No.1386 of 2018 pending in the Court learned S.D.J.M.
(Sadar), Cuttack.
The bail application of the petitioner was rejected by
the learned Addl. Sessions Judge -cum- Addl. Special Judge,
Vigilance, Cuttack in Bail Application No.95 of 2019 vide order
dated 28.01.2019.
The victim is a practising advocate of this Court and
her father is also a Senior lawyer. She lodged the first
3
information report before the Inspector in charge of Lalbag police
station, Cuttack on 28.07.2018 indicating therein as to how she
was continuously blackmailed by the petitioner on several
occasions who used her indecent photographs and morphed
photographs to spoil her marital life, extracted money from her
repeatedly, defamed her in public, tried to outrage her modesty
and caused continuous mental harassment by scandalizing her in
public and assassinated her character.
After lodging of the first information report, the
investigating officer examined the victim, her family members
and number of witnesses who also supported the case of the
victim. The victim in her statement recorded under section 161
Cr.P.C. narrated her painful experience as to how the petitioner
started blackmailing game with her by claiming to have some of
her indecent photographs which he had taken secretively without
her knowledge and also morphed some photographs by technical
means, how even after her marriage with Major Soumya Ranjan
Pati in the year 2013, he compelled her to visit many places by
threatening her to disclose the photographs to her husband and
in-laws and also to make it in public, how the petitioner forced
her to buy expensive gifts for him, took about Rs.12 to 13 lakh
from her in various ways and tried to create difference between
4
her and her husband. Several incriminating documents were
seized during course of investigation including the WhatsApp
messages and messages sent to the Gmail of the victim by the
petitioner. The investigation is still under progress.
Mr. Srinivas Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner contended that the petitioner is in judicial custody
since 20.01.2019 and the investigation has made substantial
progress. The allegations levelled in the F.I.R. against the
petitioner are false and fabricated. He placed the undertaking
given by the petitioner before the Inspector in charge, Lalbag
police station on 28.05.2018 which is annexed to the bail
application as Annexure-6 which indicates that the petitioner
undertook to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-(rupees five lakh only)
to the victim and handed over Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty
thousand only) to her father on that day in the police station and
assured to give the balance amount by 27.07.2018. Learned
counsel submitted that such an undertaking was forcefully
obtained from the petitioner and since the balance amount was
not paid, the case has been foisted against the petitioner and a
case of civil liability has been given a colour of a criminal case.
He further submitted that the materials on record indicate that
the victim was having extra marital relationship not only with the
5
petitioner but also with one Amit Kumar Nanda and in that
respect her husband Soumya Ranjan Pati who is a Major in Army
has given his reply to the Commanding Officer after receipt of
the complaint of the victim and also lodged an F.I.R. before
Inspector in charge of Airfield police station, Bhubaneswar. The
husband of the victim has filed a divorce case against her before
the Judge, Family Court, Cuttack vide Civil Proceeding No. 19 of
2019 and the petitioner has been targeted by the victim in order
to escape from the accusation levelled against her by her
husband. It is further submitted that the petitioner is serving as
an Executive in Nestle India Ltd. and there is no chance of his
absconding and also tampering with the evidence and therefore,
the bail application may be favourably considered.
Mr. Purna Chandra Das, learned Addl. Standing
Counsel on the other hand opposed the prayer for bail and
submitted that there are prima facie materials against the
petitioner relating to his involvement in the crime and the
investigation is under progress and many important witnesses
are yet to be examined and there is likelihood of tampering with
the evidence by the petitioner and therefore, he should not be
released on bail.
6
Learned counsel for the informant opposed the
prayer for bail and produced an affidavit of the victim in which
she has annexed the first information reports which were
submitted before the Inspectors in charge of Mangalabag police
station as well as Khandagiri police station relating to the threat
given by the petitioner to the victim as well as to the witness.
The victim herself came forward to oppose the
application for bail and tried to convince as to under what
compelling circumstances, she could not lodge the F.I.R. early
against the petitioner. She stated that the petitioner is now hand
in gloves with her husband for which he could get access to the
documents of Army which are internal communication between
the Commanding Officer and her husband and also the divorce
petition copy which are annexed to the bail application. She
submitted that averments taken in paragraph 2 of the bail
application are beyond record and completely derogatory.
Adverting to the contentions raised by the learned
counsel for the respective parties and on going through the
statements of the victim and other witnesses as well as the
documents collected during course of investigation, it prima facie
appears that when the victim first lodged a report against the
petitioner on 27.05.2018 alleging continuous harassment to her,
7
the petitioner was called to Lalbag police station where he
apologised for his conduct and confessed his mistakes and gave
a written undertaking not to indulge in any activity to defame the
victim, to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the victim which he had
earlier taken from the victim and paid Rs.50,000/- to the father
of the victim on that day and assured to pay the balance cash of
Rs.4,50,000/- by 27.07.2018. The petitioner thereafter on two
occasions tried to follow the victim to create a fear psychosis in
her for which the F.I.R. was lodged on 28.07.2018. The manner
in which while on interim bail, the petitioner tried to take law
into his own hand is reflected in the first information reports
which are annexed to the affidavit of the victim. The case diary
reveals that during course of investigation, the petitioner in
order to avoid arrest fled away from his house and was roaming
in New Delhi, Lucknow, Chennai, Bengaluru and other places. I
find prima facie case against the petitioner relating to
commission of offences under which the case has been
registered. What would be the fate of divorce proceeding filed by
the husband of the victim against her and whether the
allegations levelled against the victim by her husband in the
divorce petition would be acceptable or not, is a matter which is
to be adjudicated by the competent Court where the case is
subjudiced. It would not be proper to give any opinion at this
8
stage as to whether the petitioner has been targeted by the
victim in order to escape from the accusation levelled against her
by her husband. Similarly if the victim feels that the averments
made in paragraph 2 of the bail application which is supported
by affidavit is derogatory and without any substance and have
been made for demeaning her character, she is not remediless.
Taking into account the nature and gravity of
accusation, the nature of supporting evidence, the severity of
punishment in case of conviction, chances of tampering with the
witnesses and particularly when the investigation is under
progress, without detailed examination of the evidence and
elaborate discussions on the merits of the case, I am of the
humble view that it would not be proper at this stage to grant
bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the bail application being devoid of
merits, stands dismissed.
………………………….
S. K. Sahoo, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 14th March 2019/Sukanta