JUSTICE v. NARASINGH DATE OF HEARING
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ABLAPL No.3205 of 2025 1. Sandhya Kedia 2. Soubhagya Kedia …. Petitioners Mr. A. K. Jena, Advocate -versus- 1. State of Odisha 2. Laxmi Jain …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Panigrahi, ASC Mr. J. Katikia, Advocate (Informant) ABLAPL No.3283 of 2025 Naresh Kedia @ Naresh Kumar Kedia …. Petitioner Mr. A. K. Jena, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. S. Panigrahi, ASC Mr. J. Katikia, Advocate (Informant) ABLAPL No.6601 of 2025 1. Subham Jain 2. Sumit Jain …. Petitioners
Legal Reasoning
Mr. S.K. Joshi, Advocate -versus- Page 1 of 14 State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. S. Panigrahi, ASC Mr. J. Katikia, Advocate (Informant) CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH DATE OF HEARING :08.09.2025 DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 09.09.2025 V. Narasingh, J. 1. Since all the ABLAPLs relate to the same FIR, they are taken up together for consideration
Decision
and disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsels for the State as well as Informant. 3. The Petitioners are seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with C.T. Case No.1149 of 2024 pending on the file of learned JMFC(Cog.-IV) Bhubaneswar, arising out of Lakhmisagar P.S. Case No.528 of 2024 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 351(3) and 3(5) of BNS, 2023. Page 2 of 14 4. It is submitted by Mr. A.K. Jena, learned counsel in ABLAPL Nos.3205 and 3283 of 2025 and Mr. S.K. Joshi, learned counsel for the Petitioners in ABLAPL No.6601 of 2025 that the allegations primarily relate to inter se property dispute on account of the death of the informant’s husband who is related to the Petitioners. Hence, custodial interrogation of the Petitioners is not warranted. 5. Learned counsel for the State Mr. Panigrahi as well as learned counsel Informant Mr. J. Katikia oppose the prayer for pre-arrest bail. 6. It is submitted by Mr. Jena, learned counsel for the Petitioners in ABLAPL Nos.3205 and 3283 of 2025 referring to the agreement on record at Annexure-2 that there was a settlement between the parties relating to the property of the late Dinesh Kedia, husband of the Informant notwithstanding the same Petitioners have been falsely implicated. Page 3 of 14 7. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the Informant that soon after the death of the informant’s husband Dinesh Kedia on 03.03.2024 his mortal remains was shifted to his paternal house at Bijmara, near Jaipatna, Dist-Kalahandi, Odisha where his funeral took place on 05.03.2024. On 07.03.2024 the Petitioner in ABLAPL No.3283 of 2025 (Naresh Kedia @ Naresh Kumar Kedia) took away the mobile phone of the deceased on the pretext of the necessity of the same for getting the death certificate etc. And, using such mobile phone the Petitioner in ABLAPL No.3283 of 2025 (Naresh Kedia @ Naresh Kumar Kedia) got himself implanted as nominee. 8. On instruction(s), learned counsel for the State supports such submission of the learned counsel for the Informant. The instruction in this regard so received by the learned counsel for the State is culled out hereunder for ready Page 4 of 14 reference; On a bare perusal of the same, it is seen that the Petitioner in ABLAPL No.3283 of 2025 (Naresh Kedia @ Naresh Kumar Kedia) added himself as the nominee on 30.03.2024. It is apt to note that the “client” referred to in such Page 5 of 14 instruction, is late Dinesh Kedia who passed away on 03.03.2024. 8-A. It is brought to the notice of this Court on the basis of instructions by the learned counsel for the State that the demat account which was in the name of Dinesh Kedia maintained with Zerodha Broking Limited. There was no nominee. Instructions in this regard is extracted hereunder; “…………….. I am to intimate that at the time of opening of Demat account bearing No - 1208160001108348 the deceased Dinesh Kumar Kedia had not appointed any one as his Nominee which is evident in page No- 13 & 14 of the KYC Application Form. But at the present date Naresh Kumar Kedia is the Nominee of this account with 100% share. This change in Nominee was made after the death of Dinesh Kumar Kedia. xxx xxx xxx” (Emphasized) 8-B. Learned Counsel for the State has placed on record the details of the demat account, which prime facie indicates that after the death of the Page 6 of 14 husband of the informant, there has been substantial withdrawl to the tune of of about Rs.7,00,00,000/-(Seven Crores). The said instruction(s) is extracted hereunder:- 8-C. Referring to the account statement, it is brought to the notice of this Court that after the death of the husband of the informant money has been transferred to several beneficiaries from the Zerodha account. Page 7 of 14 9. And, referring to such instructions learned counsels for the State as well as informant submit that protecting the Petitioners by way of pre-arrest bail would derail the ongoing investigation. 10. The Apex Court in its recent verdict in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vrs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another 1 has clarified that the parameters for consideration of bail of an accused in custody also apply in equal measure while considering an application for pre- arrest bail. Hence, the submissions made at the Bar have to be tested on the anvil of the law as laid down. 11. Admittedly the Informant’s husband died on 03.03.2024 and it is her specific case that her husband’s younger brother, namely, Naresh Kedia @ Naresh Kumar Kedia, the Petitioner in ABLAPL No.3283 of 2025 took away the mobile phone of the deceased. It is indeed baffling that instead of 1 2023 SCC online SC 452 “11……..We would like to clarify that what we have enunciated qua bail would equally apply to anticipatory bail cases. Anticipatory bail after all is one of the species of a bail.” Page 8 of 14 the widow of the deceased, the brother of the informant will become the nominee having 100% share of the demat account of the deceased, which had a balance of around Rs.7,00,00,000/- (Seven Crores), as evident from the instructions received. 12. The Petitioner in ABLAPL No.3283 of 2025 (Naresh Kedia @ Naresh Kumar Kedia) becoming the nominee in a clandestine manner assumes significance in the light of the instructions relied upon by the learned public prosecutor that taking advantage of the death of the informant’s husband, the mobile phone of the deceased was taken away from her, for which she had to get a new sim card and after getting such sim card, she logged into the share trading account of her husband. And, it came to light that approximately Rs.1.98 Crores worth of shares had been sold by Naresh Kedia in April, 2024 after inducting himself as a nominee on 30.03.2024. Page 9 of 14 And, when it came to the notice of the Petitioner that the informant has got a new sim card and has access to the account of her deceased-husband, the Petitioner in ABLAPL No.3283 of 2025(Naresh Kedia @ Naresh Kumar Kedia) blocked the sim by contacting Airtel Office and also changed the Email Id password of the account in the name of the informant’s husband (Dinesh Kedia) and also changed the mobile number. 13. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Informant that all the Petitioners who are related to late husband Dinesh Kedia have actively connived with the Petitioner in ABLAPL No.3283 of 2025 and as such are not entitled for pre-arrest bail. 14. In this context the learned counsel for the Informant also relies on the judgment of the Apex Page 10 of 14 Court in the case of State represented by the CBI vrs. Anil Sharma2. It is his further submission that “in a case like this effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful information’s and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual.” 15. On a perspicuous analysis of the materials on record and adverting to the instruction(s) received by the learned counsel for the State as extracted hereinabove, considering the modus operandi adopted by the Petitioner in ABLPL No.3283 of 2025 post the tragic death of his brother on 03.03.2024, this Court is persuaded to hold that there are prima facie materials to point 2 1997 SCC OnLine SC 147 Page 11 of 14 the needle of suspicion at the Petitioner in ABLAPL No.3283 of 2025 that he acted with undue haste to get himself surreptitiously inducted as a nominee in respect of 100% shareholding, so as to usurp and consequentially deprive a widow and her two daughters from getting their legitimate dues. 15-A. In such back ground, it cannot be said that the role of the Petitioner in ABLAPL No.3283 of 2025 does not merit a thorough probe to establish whether the Petitioner in ABLAPL No.3283 of 2025 had the dishonest intention from inception. 16. This Court finds force in the submission of the learned counsel for the State and the informant that such probe would be a futile exercise if the Petitioner in ABLAPL No.3283 of 2025 is insulated by a pre-arrest bail. 17. Accordingly, the ABLAPL No.3283 of 2025 in respect of Petitioner (Naresh Kedia @ Naresh Kumar Kedia) stands disposed of. Interim order stands vacated. Page 12 of 14 18. Considering the nature of allegations in respect of the Petitioners in ABLAPL Nos. 3205 (Sandhya Kedia and Soubhagya Kedia) and 6601 (Subham Jain and Sumit Jain) of 2025 notwithstanding money trail to their accounts, this Court is persuaded to hold that custodial interrogation of the said Petitioners is not warranted. This Court directs that in the event of their arrest in connection with the aforesaid case, they shall be released on bail by the Arresting Officer on such terms and conditions deemed just and proper so as to ensure their cooperation in the ongoing investigation. While conducting such ongoing investigation, the Investigating Officer shall be alive to the fact that the Petitioners in ABLAPL No. 3205 of 2025 are ladies. 19. It is needless to state here that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of considering the prayer of the Petitioners for pre- arrest bail and that ought not to be construed as Page 13 of 14 this Court expressing any opinion regarding the complicity of any of the Petitioners which is to be established independently in the ongoing probe. 20. The ABLAPLs accordingly stand disposed of. (V. NARASINGH) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 9th September, 2025/Jina/Santoshi Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTOSHI LENKA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 09-Sep-2025 21:17:11 Page 14 of 14