The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL NOs.5714, 6232, 6303, 6347, 6350 & 7091 of 2025 (In the matter of applications under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023). … Petitioners Ravi Raj (In BLAPL No.5714 of 2025) Sritam Kumar Meher (In BLAPL No.6232 of 2025) Anil Nayak @ Naik (In BLAPL No. 6303 of 2025) Bishwamber Kharsel @ Bishwambhar Kharsal (In BLAPL No. 6347 of 2025) Bijay Kumar Meher (In BLAPL No. 6350 of 2025) Rajesh Tandi & Another (In BLAPL No. 7091 of 2025) Mr. Y.Das, Sr. Advocate along with Mr.M.Mukul & Mr. N.C.Mohanty, Advocate (in BLAPL No. 5714 of 2025) Ms.M.Mohapatra along with Mr.A.Das, Advocate (In BLAPL Nos. 6232, 6303, 6347, 6350 & 7091 of 2025) -versus- State of Odisha … Opposite Party Mr. A.Pradhan, Addl. PP CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY DATE OF HEARING :13.10.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:13.10.2025 G. Satapathy, J. 1. These are the bail applications U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection BLAPL Nos.5714 of 2025 & other cases Page 1 of 10 with Cyber Crime & Economic offences UPD PS Case No. 0032 of 2025 corresponding to GR Case No.402 of 2025 pending in the file of learned JMFC-I(Cog.Taking), Cuttack, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.318(4)/319(2)/336(4)/338/340(2)/3(5) of BNS read with Sec. 66(C)/66(D) of IT Act. 2. It appears from the record that one Samir
Legal Reasoning
Pratap Harichandan lodged an FIR before the ACP, Cyber Police Station, Cuttack alleging therein that he came in contact with one trading company namely, M/S.Spreadex Global Ltd. in the month of February, 2025 through Telegram App with user name Good_Priya Bajaj having mobile No.+917297864486 and thereafter, he went on depositing Rs.78 Lakhs in a phase wise manner in the said company and as per the statement of the said company, his investment grew up to $ 2,56,981 USD, which is equivalent to INR Rs.2 Crores, but when he wanted to withdraw the amount, the said company asked him to deposit INR Rs.29,16,130/- towards foreign exchange value and income tax etc., however, when he asked the company BLAPL Nos.5714 of 2025 & other cases Page 2 of 10 to deduct the same from the amount payable to him, the company refused and he, thereby, smelled the financial fraud. In the FIR, the informant has further prayed for recovery of his hard earned money. Pursuant to the FIR, a criminal case was registered against unknown persons and the matter was investigated into, but finding the involvement of the petitioners in the course of investigation, they were taken into custody and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioners for commission of offence punishable U/Ss. 318(4)/319(2)/336(4)/338/340(2)/61(2)/3(5) of the BNS r/w Sec.66C/ 66D of the IT Act. 3.
Legal Reasoning
Heard, Mr. Y. Das, learned Senior Counsel, who is being assisted by Mr.M.Mukul & Mr. N.C. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No. 5714 of 2025; Ms.M.Mohapatra appearing along with Mr.A.Das, learned counsel for the petitioners in BLAPL Nos. 6232, 6303, 6347,6350 & 7091 of 2025 and Mr. A.Pradhan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in these matters and perused the record. BLAPL Nos.5714 of 2025 & other cases Page 3 of 10 3.1. It is, however, submitted for the petitioners that they are neither having any transaction with the informant nor were having any link with the company M/S.Spreadex Global Ltd., but the account No.8005657281 belongs to petitioner Deepak Dharua(BLAPL No. 7091 of 2025), but Rs.2 Lakhs was transferred to the said account as per the charge-sheet, however, Rs.1.5 Lakhs is still available in the said account, but the petitioners are in custody since the month of May and June, 2025 and in the meantime, charge-sheet has already been submitted. It is also submitted for the petitioners that the name of none of the petitioners finds place in the FIR nor any specific allegation is raised out against any of the petitioners, but the informant being an educated person has invested the money in the company, which has no link with the petitioners, however, such investment is subject to market risk like mutual fund and even if for the sake of argument, if the investment of the informant has not been returned, he should have approached the financial authority like “SEBI”. Further, BLAPL Nos.5714 of 2025 & other cases Page 4 of 10 it is also argued for the petitioners that the allegation leveled against the petitioners is based on documentary evidence and, thereby, the petitioners having no scope to tamper with the prosecution evidence/materials, they may kindly be granted bail. In response to the affidavit filed by the IO with regard to involvement of the petitioners in FIR No.184 of 2025 in Bruhan, Mumbai, Cyber Police Thane and FIR No.151 of 2025 in the Special Cell Police Station, Dwaraka Delhi, it is submitted that neither the name of the petitioners finds place in the said FIRs nor have they any link in the said cases nor the account No.8005657281 belong to them and, therefore, the petitioners having not been found involved in this case and detained in custody for more than five months may kindly be granted bail. 3.2. In opposing the prayer for bail of the petitioners, Mr. A.Pradhan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has, however, strongly submitted that not only the petitioners have defrauded the complainant for a sum of Rs.78 Lakhs, but also they are squarely involved in other cases as revealed from the affidavit of BLAPL Nos.5714 of 2025 & other cases Page 5 of 10 the IO filed in this case, which reasonably link the petitioners in two cases in Mumbai and Delhi, which are prima facie being found from the five complaints registered against account No.8005657281, which was used by all the petitioners and, therefore, the release of the petitioners would definitely impede the process of further investigation in this case. On the aforesaid submission, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has prayed to reject the bail applications of the petitioners. 4. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, it appears that the petitioners have been apprehended in connection with this case for commission of cyber fraud, but the informant has never named the petitioners in his FIR, rather the FIR allegations goes to show that the informant had come in contact with M/S. Spreadex Global Ltd. through social media platform from one Priya Bajaj as a broker and accordingly, he had invested the money. The petitioners are in custody for some time and in the meantime, charge-sheet has already been submitted. Whatever may be the BLAPL Nos.5714 of 2025 & other cases Page 6 of 10 allegation against the petitioners, but it is only the allegation at this stage, but the same is subject to trial. True it is that the State opposes the bail applications of the petitioners for the involvement of Account No.8005657281 in five complaints as per portal of the Ministry of Home Affairs, but only two FIRs have been culminated out of such complaints, however, the State has produced the copy of FIRs in which the name of none of the petitioners does figure out. Besides, no material has been produced by the State to show the involvement of the petitioners in the complaints made against Account No.8005657281. The allegation against the petitioners is totally based on documentary evidence, which can be examined in the trial, but there is hardly any scope for the petitioners to tamper with such documents. Besides, bail should not be confused as acquittal of the accused persons since it is a mode of temporary release from custody by taking reasonable amount of bail pending adjudication of the dispute in the trial. Denial of bail only to keep the accused persons in confinement amounts to deprivation of BLAPL Nos.5714 of 2025 & other cases Page 7 of 10 personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is also not in dispute that “bail is the rule, but jail is the exception” since an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty at the trial. 5. In the aforesaid backdrop, when the allegation against the petitioners is considered on the face of materials placed on record together with their pre trial detention and balancing the same in the scale of golden principle of bail jurisprudence, it would not be improper to grant bail to the petitioners, more particularly when the investigation in respect of the petitioners has already been completed and the culpability of the petitioners can be adjudicated in the trial, which is not going to commence in near future. 6. Hence, the bail applications of the petitioners stand allowed and the petitioners are allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin of the case on such terms BLAPL Nos.5714 of 2025 & other cases Page 8 of 10 and conditions as deem fit and proper by it with following conditions: - (i) the petitioners shall not commit any offence while on bail and the petitioners shall further investigation, if any by appearing before the IO as and when required, co-operate with the fail unless (ii) the petitioners in the course of trial shall attend the trial Court on each date of posting without their attendance is dispensed with. In case the Petitioners fail without sufficient cause to appear in the Court in accordance with the terms of the bail, the learned trial Court may proceed against the Petitioners for offence U/S.269 of BNS, 2023 in accordance with law, (iii) the petitioners shall not leave the country without prior permission of the learned trial Court till disposal of the case, (iv) the Petitioners shall inform the Court as well as the Investigating Agency as to their place of residence during the trial by providing number(s), their mobile residential address, e-mail, if any, and other documents in support of proof of their residence. The Petitioners shall not change their address of residence without intimating to the Court and Investigating Agency, (v) In case the Petitioners misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure their presence, proclamation U/S.84 of BNSS, 2023 is issued and the Petitioners fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed BLAPL Nos.5714 of 2025 & other cases Page 9 of 10 in such proclamation, then, the learned trial Court would be at liberty to initiate for offence proceeding against them U/S.209 of BNS, 2023 in accordance with law. if any (vi) The petitioners shall surrender their passport, (if not already surrendered), and in case, they are not a holder of the same, they shall swear an affidavit to that effect. If their passport has already been seized or they have already their pass-port before the learned trial Court that fact should also be supported by an affidavit. surrendered It is clarified that the Court in seisin of the case would be at liberty to cancel the bail of the petitioners without further reference to this Court, if any of the above conditions are violated or a case for cancellation of bail is otherwise made out. In the wake of aforesaid, the subsequent involvement of the petitioners in future for similar/grave offences on prima facie accusations may be treated as a ground for cancellation of bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, all the BLAPLs referred to above
Decision
stand disposed of. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: KISHORE KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 14-Oct-2025 14:05:42 (G. Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 13th day of October, 2025/Kishore BLAPL Nos.5714 of 2025 & other cases Page 10 of 10