JUSTICE v. NARASINGH ORDER
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ABLAPL No.9165 of 2025 Sk Rauf @ Dr Sheikh Rauf …. Petitioner Mr. S.C. Mohapatra, Sr. Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. S. Panda, ASC ABLAPL No.9166 of 2025 Prasanta Kuma Panda @ Dr. Prasanta Kumar Panda …. Petitioner Mr. S.C. Mohapatra, Sr. Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party
Legal Reasoning
Mr. S. Panda, ASC ABLAPL No.9208 of 2025 Sasmita Pattnaik @ Dr. Sasmita Patnaik …. Petitioner Mr. S.C. Mohapatra, Sr. Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. S. Panda, ASC Page 1 of 7 ABLAPL No.9856 of 2025 Manjubala Majhi …. Petitioner Mr. S.S. Chhualsingh, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. S. Panda, ASC ABLAPL No.9868 of 2025 Jayanti Behera …. Petitioner Mr. S.S. Chhualsingh, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. S. Panda, ASC ABLAPL No.12980 of 2025 Renubala Palatsingh …. Petitioner Mr. S.S. Chhualsingh, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. S. Panda, ASC ABLAPL No.13069 of 2025 Sandhyarani Ranasingh …. Petitioner Mr. S.S. Chhualsingh, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. S. Panda, ASC Page 2 of 7 ABLAPL No.13521 of 2025 Satyabhama Mangaraj …. Petitioner Mr. S.C. Atabudhi, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. S. Panda, ASC ABLAPL No.13536 of 2025 Alok Mangaraj …. Petitioner Mr. S.C. Atabudhi, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. S. Panda, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
Decision
ORDER 03.12.2025 Order No. 04. 1. Since all the matters arise out of same F.I.R, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order on the consent of the parties. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 3. The Petitioners are seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with C.T. Case No.126 of 2023 pending in the Court of learned Presiding Officer Designated Court (under OPID Act), Cuttack, arising out of EOW Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No.12 of 2021 for commission of offence punishable under Sections 420/ 467/ 468/ 471/120-B of IPC. Page 3 of 7 4. The common thread of allegation against Petitioners is that they connived with the LIC agent one Kabiraj Behera in getting a life insured (Dipak Mangaraj), when the said insured was already dead. 5. It is apt to note here that the Petitioners in ABLAPL Nos. 13069, 13521 and 13536 of 2025 (Sandhyarani Ranasingh, Satyabhama Mangaraj and Alok Mangaraj ) are the LRs of Dipak Mangaraj, who are the nominees of the Insurance Policy procured fraudulently. 6. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the Petitioners in ABLAPL Nos.9165, 9166 and 9208 of 2025 (Sk Rauf @ Dr Sheikh Rauf, Prasanta Kuma Panda @ Dr. Prasanta Kumar Panda, Sasmita Pattnaik @ Dr. Sasmita Patnaik) that they had examined the prospective insured. One Kabiraj Behera was the LIC agent, who had identified those person(s) and naively believing the LIC agent and verifying the identity proof of the person(s) they signed in the proposal form. They had no clue and no scope to know that identity proof have been forged. It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel for the Petitioners that they are victims of circumstances have no complicity and may thus be released on pre-arrest bail. 6A. So far as the complicity of the Petitioners in ABLAPL Nos.9856 of 2025, 9868 of 2025, 12980 of 2025 and 13069 of 2025 (Manjubala Majhi, Jayanti Behera, Page 4 of 7 Renubala Palatsingh, Sandhyarani Ranasingh) are concerned, it is submitted that the Petitioner in ABLAPL No. 9856 of 2025 (Manjubala Majhi) is an ANM (Auxiliary Nurse Midwife) and the Petitioners in ABLAPL Nos.9868 of 2025, 12980 of 2025 and 13069 of 2025 (Jayanti Behera, Renubala Palatsingh, Sandhyarani Ranasingh) are working as ASHA (Accredited Social Health Activist). It is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that taking into account the limited role ascribed to them, they ought to be protected by pre- arrest bail. 6B. So far as the Petitioners in ABLAPL Nos. 13521 of 2025 and 13536 of 2025 (Satyabhama Mangaraj and Alok Mangaraj) are concerned, they are the mother and brother respectively of the said Dipak Mangaraj in whose name the policy was sought to be taken even after his death. Learned counsel for the State, on instruction, submits that the present Petitioners are beneficiaries of five such policies in the name of the said Dipak Mangaraj with financial implication of Rs.62,00,000/-. As such the same ought to be taken into account while considering the prayer for pre-arrest bail of the said Petitioners. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioners in ABLAPL No.13521 of 2025 and 13536 of 2025 (Satyabhama Mangaraj and Alok Mangaraj) that even if the entire prosecution is accepted at its face value, there is nothing on record to show that they Page 5 of 7 played any role in the policy having been taken in respect of the deceased Dipak Mangaraj and since they are only nominees, that ought to weigh with this Court in considering their prayer pre-arrest bail. 7. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the policies in respect of Dipak Mangaraj has since been cancelled on detection of fraud as per pet rated. It is apt to note here that in the meanwhile the principal accused Kabiraj Behera has been released on bail by order dated 29.06.2022 by this Court in BLAPL No.2575 of 2022. 8. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for pre-arrest bail and plea of innocence of each of the accused, inter alia, on the ground though the charge sheet has been filed, investigation is still in progress to probe the role played by each of the Petitioners. Hence, they ought not to be protected by pre-arrest bail, lest it would derail the ongoing investigation. 9. Considering the rival submission and taking into account the charge sheet in the case at hand as filed and nature of allegations being based more or less on documentary evidence and role ascribed to each of the Petitioners, it is directed that on surrendering within three weeks hence and moving for bail, the Petitioners shall be released on bail by the learned Court in seisin on such terms as deemed just and proper, subject to verification of criminal antecedent of similar nature under Page 6 of 7 Sections 420/468/471 of IPC or the corresponding sections of the BNS. If it comes to fore that the Petitioners have any such criminal antecedent(s), this order shall not be given effect to. It is needless to state that the Petitioners shall cooperate with the ongoing investigation. 10. Accordingly, the ABLAPLs stand disposed of. U.C.C. as per rules. (V. NARASINGH) Soumya Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN SAMAL Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 06-Dec-2025 13:59:11 Page 7 of 7