The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.6770 of 2025 (In the matter of application under Section 483 of the BNSS). Sambit Panda … -versus- Petitioner State of Odisha … Opposite Party For Petitioner : Mr. Y. Das, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. N.C. Mohanty, Advocate For Opposite Party : Mr. M.K. Mohanty, Addl. PP Mr. S.S. Bhuyan, Advocate (informant) CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY DATE OF HEARING & DATE OF JUDGMENT:02.09.2025 (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 Infocity P.S. Case No.440 of 2024 corresponding to 1 C.C. Case No.6812 of 2024 (C.T. Case No.1608 of 2024) pending in the file of learned J.M.F.C.-II (Cog. Taking), Bhubaneswar, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.316(2)/ 324(5)/ 318(4)/ 338/ BLAPL No. 6770 of 2025 Page 1 of 7 336(3)/340(2)/351(2) of BNS, on main the allegation of cheating the informant by not providing as agreed the luxury cars by taking a sum of Rs.1,08,50,000/-. 2.
Legal Reasoning
After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears some allegations against the petitioner for receiving certain amount to deliver some luxury cars, but it is unearthed in the investigation that the petitioner has allegedly transferred a sum of Rs.90,00,000/- to co- BLAPL No. 6770 of 2025 Page 4 of 7 accused namely Usharani Barik. Be that as it may, criminal proceedings are never meant for realization of money as held by Apex Court in Ramesh Kumar Vrs. State of NCT of Delhi; (2023) 7 SCC 461. In this case, as per the submissions advanced by the parties, there appears oral agreement between the petitioner and the informant for supply of car after receiving the amount, but the petitioner has already been detained in custody since 09.06.2025 and in the meantime, charge sheet has already been submitted. Further, the allegations which have been levelled against the petitioner are subject to trial, but at best right now it is only allegation and detaining a person for indefinite period pending trial would not be in the interest of justice or personal liberty of such person as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The primary and paramount consideration in granting bail is securing the possibility of attendance of the accused at the trial, but there is no material on record to suggest that the petitioner would abscond in case of his enlargement on bail. BLAPL No. 6770 of 2025 Page 5 of 7 4. In such view of the matter and taking into consideration the materials placed on record vis-(cid:224)-vis the accusations sought to be brought against him and keeping in view the right of the accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty at the trial and taking into account the law laid down by the Apex Court in Satender Antil(Supra), this Court without expressing any view on merits, admits the petitioner to bail. 5. Hence, the bail application of the Petitioner stands allowed and the Petitioner is allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) only with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin of the case on such terms and conditions as deem fit and proper by it with following conditions:- influence any of (i) the petitioner shall not threaten, coerce the witnesses or acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts before the learned trial Court. BLAPL No. 6770 of 2025 Page 6 of 7 (ii) the petitioner shall not leave the country without seeking prior permission of the learned trial Court. 6.
Arguments
In the course of hearing, Mr. Yasobant Das, learned Senior Counsel, who is being assisted by Mr. Nirmal Chandra Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although it is alleged that the petitioner has received Rs.1,08,50,000/- to supply cars, but since the petitioner was not the real supplier of luxury cars, he transferred the money to one Usharani Barik to supply the same, but unfortunately luxury cars could not be supplied to the informant and even if the materials on record are taken into consideration, it would only be a case of breach of contract which does not give rise to any criminal action/liabilities, but notwithstanding to such fact, the complainant has managed to initiate a criminal case by filing a complaint and sending it to the Police for registration. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 09.06.2025 and charge sheet has already been submitted in this case, but fact remains BLAPL No. 6770 of 2025 Page 2 of 7 that all the offences alleged against the petitioner are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, rather the same is triable by Magistrate First Class and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vrs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2022) 10 SCC 51, the petitioner may kindly be granted bail. 2.1. In opposing the prayer for bail, Mr. Sourav Suman Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for the informant, however, strongly argues and submits that not only the petitioner is involved in this case, but also he is involved in another case and since the petitioner has prima facie committed a financial fraud, he should not be granted bail and the informant is unaware of the fact as to whether the petitioner has transferred the money to co-accused or not, but in fact the petitioner has cheated the informant by not supplying the car after receiving the Rs.1,08,50,000/-. It is further submitted that although there is a financial fraud committed by the petitioner, but the informant is only concerned about BLAPL No. 6770 of 2025 Page 3 of 7 refund of his hard-earned money and in case the petitioner delivers the amount, the informant would not have any serious objection for grant of bail to the petitioner. 2.2. In echoing the submission of the learned counsel for the informant, Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Addl. PP submits slightly different by arguing that the petitioner has transferred a sum of Rs.90,00,000/- to the co-accused Usharani Barik, who is yet to be apprehended and charge sheet has already been submitted by keeping the investigation open for other action and, therefore, at this stage granting bail would allow the petitioner to interfere with the investigation and witnesses and, therefore, the petitioner may not kindly be granted bail. 3.
Decision
Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. 7. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules. (G. Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 2nd day of September, 2025/S.Sasmal Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASMITA SASMAL Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 03-Sep-2025 14:12:26 BLAPL No. 6770 of 2025 Page 7 of 7