Become a member

Get the best offers and updates relating to Liberty Case News.

― Advertisement ―

HOW AI IS RESHAPING LEGAL PRACTICE: OPPORTUNITIES AND ETHICAL CONCERNS

INTRODUCTIONThe legal profession, traditionally characterized by conservatism and a reliance on precedent, stands at the precipice of a technological revolution. Artificial Intelligence (AI)...
HomeHigh CourtOrissa High CourtM. Mohan Rao vs Union Of India (Cbi) .... Opposite Party on...

M. Mohan Rao vs Union Of India (Cbi) …. Opposite Party on 29 April, 2025

Orissa High Court

M. Mohan Rao vs Union Of India (Cbi) …. Opposite Party on 29 April, 2025

Author: V. Narasingh

Bench: V. Narasingh

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                           ABLAPL No.2875 of 2025

                 1. M. Mohan Rao         ....           Petitioners
                 2. G. Ramprasad
                 3. G. Satyanarayan
                 4. G. Umamaheswar
                                              Mr. P.K Ray, Advocate


                                  -versus-

        Union of India (CBI)             ....       Opposite Party
                                         Mr. S. Nayak, Adv. (CBI)


                        CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
                                    ORDER

29.04.2025
Order No.

03. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and
learned counsel for the Union of India (CBI).

2. The Petitioners are seeking pre-arrest bail in
connection with RC No.5A/2025 pending in the Court of
learned Spl. Judge, CBI-1, Bhubaneswar arising out of
CBI/AC-11/ New Delhi Case No. RC2172025A0005 dtd.
03.03.2025 for commission of offence punishable under
Sections 10,12,7,7A,8,9, of PC Act 1988 as amended
2018 read with Section 120-B IPC.

3. Learned retainer counsel, Mr. Nayak, submits
that a reply has already been submitted. Registry is
requested to trace the same and tag with the file. A
copy of the same handed over to Court is taken on
record.

Page 1 of 3

4. Learned retainer counsel, Mr. Nayak, on
instruction, submits that so far as the Petitioners 2 to 4
are concerned, the authorities have taken recourse to
the provision of Section 35(3) of the BNSS and in
response thereto, the Petitioners 2 to 4 have
appeared. So far as the Petitioner No.1 is concerned,
investigation is underway. Hence, he submits that
Petitioner No.1 ought not to be protected by pre-arrest
bail.

5. In this context learned retainer counsel places
reliance on the written reply.

6. This Court perused the written reply as well as
the allegations.

7. Taking note of the same and also keeping in
view the nature of allegations qua the Petitioner
No.1(M. Mohan Rao) and his age (75 years), it is
directed that in the event of arrest of the Petitioner
No.1(M. Mohan Rao) in connection with the aforesaid
case, Petitioner No.1(M. Mohan Rao) shall be released
on bail by the Arresting Officer on such terms and
conditions deemed just and proper with further
conditions that he will cooperate with the investigation.

8. Violation of any of the above condition(s) shall
entail cancellation of the bail.

9. So far as the Petitioner No.2 to 4 is concerned,
the ABLAPL has become infructuous in view of the
submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioners

Page 2 of 3
that the provision relating to Section 35(3) of BNSS
has been resorted.

10. Accordingly, the ABLAPL stands disposed of.

(V. NARASINGH)
Judge
Soumya

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN SAMAL
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 01-May-2025 10:34:23

Page 3 of 3



Source link