The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL NO.4014 of 2025 (In the matter of application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023). Ashish Kumar Jena @ Sidhul … Petitioner -versus- State of Orissa … Opposite Party For Petitioner : Mr. B. Mohanty, Advocate For Opposite Party
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. T.K. Acharya, Addl. PP Mr. A. Patra, Advocate(Informant) CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:03.09.2025(ORAL) G. Satapathy, J. 1. This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Khandagiri PS Case No.834 of 2024 corresponding to CT Case No.2174 of 2024 pending in the file of learned JMFC-V, Bhubaneswar, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.318(4)/338/336/340(3)/3(5) of BNS, on the main allegation of cheating the informant for a sum of Rs. 1.5 Crores on the pretext of providing a BLAPL No.4014 of 2025 Page 1 of 7 house-cum-flat together with the land by forging documents. 2. In the course of hearing, Mr. Bana Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner appearing virtually submits that although there is allegation against the Petitioner for swindling away a sum of Rs. 1.5 Crores from the informant on the pretext of supplying a flat, but fact remains that the Petitioner has never cheated the informant and the document which has been annexed to the FIR are some forged documents and the informant by using such forged documents, has manufactured a case against the Petitioner. Mr. Mohanty further submits that at no point of time, the Petitioner has made any agreement with Jogmaya Nanda and shown her house to the Informant to sell away the said house and the Petitioner having detained in custody for a substantial period may kindly be granted bail. 2.1. In opposing the prayer, Mr. T.K. Acharya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, however, argues in vehemence and submits that not only the Petitioner BLAPL No.4014 of 2025 Page 2 of 7 has cheated the informant, but also the manner in which he has deceived the informant by showing a house belonging to Jogmaya Nanda to be provided the Informant is an unacceptable crime, but when investigation was carried out with regard to said house, the grandson of Jogmaya Nanda disclosed that his grandmother had already expired and she had not made any agreement with the Petitioner. Mr. Acharya further submits that the Petitioner being a habitual offender, has five cases to his credit and out of the five cases, four are of similar nature and, therefore, the bail application of the Petitioner may kindly be rejected. 2.2. In echoing the submission of learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Mr. Aviram Patra, learned counsel for the Informant, however, forcefully submits that not only the Petitioner has taken away money through online transfer and some amount in the name of the friends of the Petitioner for purchasing the materials, but also has duped the informant for a sum of Rs. 1.5 Crores and he having involved in other cases, his bail application may kindly be rejected. BLAPL No.4014 of 2025 Page 3 of 7 3. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, it appears that the Petitioner is not only alleged in this case, but he is allegedly involved in following cases:- “(i)Nayapalli P.S. Case No.284/2022 (ii) Cyber Crime & Economic Offence UPD BBS PS Case No. 31/2023 (iii) Cyber Crime & Economic Offences UPD BBSR PS Case No. 32/2023 (iv) Cyber Crime & Economic Offences UPD BBSR PS Case No. 33/2023 (v) Khandagiri PS Case No. 228 of 2028” It is contended by the State that out of these five cases, four are of similar nature. In a very recent decision in Kaushal Singh Vrs. State of Rajasthan; 2025 INSC 871, the Apex Court has been pleased to hold in paragraphs-22 and 23 as under:- “22. Before parting, we would like to state that, accounting for the criminal antecedents of the bail the accused while considering applications has been the subject matter of concern for Courts across the country. The rules and orders of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, to be specific, Rule 5 of Chapter 1- A(b) Volume-V specifically provide as below: BLAPL No.4014 of 2025 Page 4 of 7 “5. Bail applications.- In every application for bail presented to the High Court the petitioner shall state whether similar application has or has not been made to the Supreme Court, and if made shall state the result thereof. The petitioner/applicant shall also mention whether he/she is/was involved in any other criminal case or not. If yes, particulars and decisions thereof. An application which does not contain information shall be placed before the bench with the necessary information. this 23. We feel that every High Court in the country should consider incorporating a similar provision in the respective High Court Rules and/or Criminal Side Rules as it would impose an obligation on to make disclosures regarding his/her involvement in any previously other registered.” the accused criminal case(s) 4. The above precedent is significant not only because the petitioner knew all these facts including his antecedents as disclosed in the rejection order of bail to the petitioner, but learned counsel for the petitioner, however, gave no valid reply to the contention of learned State counsel in respect of criminal antecedent of the petitioner. Besides, a careful scrutiny of the bail application of the Petitioner, this Court nowhere finds the Petitioner to have disclosed his criminal BLAPL No.4014 of 2025 Page 5 of 7 antecedents. Moreover, there is not only allegation against the Petitioner for cheating the informant by forging documents, but also allegedly practicing same type of crime in respect of other persons. The averments taken in the FIR discloses the amount to have been transferred through recognized mode like RTGS or online transfer to the account of the Petitioner. 5. In view of the materials placed on record and taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the offence vis-(cid:224)-vis the allegation sought to be brought against the Petitioner and the materials collected by the Investigating Agency in support of the allegation and keeping in view the alleged involvement of the Petitioner in four similar type of cases and taking into account the impact of this type of crime on society and last but not the least, the Petitioner being allegedly involved in financial fraud, this Court does not consider it proper to grant bail to the Petitioner at this stage, when the trial is yet to commence. BLAPL No.4014 of 2025 Page 6 of 7 6. Hence, the bail application of the petitioner stands rejected. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands
Decision
disposed of. (G. Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 3rd day of September, 2025/Priyajit Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: JAYAKRUSHNA DASH Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 06-Sep-2025 16:37:25 BLAPL No.4014 of 2025 Page 7 of 7