JUSTICE v. NARASINGH Order No
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ABLAPL No. 12062 of 2025 1. Suresh Kothari 2. Sidharth Kothari 3. Sripal Kothari …. Petitioners Mr. K. Gaya, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party
Legal Reasoning
Mr. S.K. Lenka, ASC Mr. S.S. Das, Sr. Advocate Mr. P.K. Ghose, Advocate (Informant) CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Order No. 02. 1.
Decision
ORDER 28.10.2025 Appearance memo filed by Mr. S.S. Das, learned Senior Advocate along with the vakalatnama filed by Mr. P.K. Ghose, learned counsel & Associates on behalf of the Informant are taken on record. 2. Registry is requested to reflect the name of Mr. S.S. Das, learned Senior Advocate & his Associates on the file, cause list as well as Web Portal of this Court. 3. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners, learned counsel for the State and learned Senior Counsel for the Informant. 4. The Petitioners are seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with C.T. Case No.143 of 2022 pending on Page 1 of 6 the file of learned SDJM, Nuapada arising out of Jonk P.S. Case No.49 of 2022 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 420/ 406/ 409/ 467/ 471/ 120B of IPC. 3. This is the third journey of the Petitioners to this Court. Earlier Petitioner Nos.1 & 3 (Suresh Kothari & Sripal Kothari respectively) were before this Court in ABLAPL Nos.7625 of 2023 & 7033 of 2023 respectively and this Court by common order dated 31.10.2023 rejected the said ABLAPLs of Petitioners 1 & 3. Petitioner No.2 (Sidharth Kothari) was before this Court in ABLAPL No.6442 of 2023 and this Court rejected the said ABLAPL by order dated 20.07.2023. Thereafter, all the Petitioners were before this Court in ABLAPL No.2043 of 2025 which was dismissed for non-prosecution by order dated 21.08.2025. 4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioners that since in the meanwhile charge sheet in the case at hand has been submitted on 03.12.2024 and taking into account the nature of allegations which according to the learned counsel for the Petitioners are more or less civil in nature and the dispute pending in NCLT, Cuttack in CP No.125/CTB/ 2020, the Petitioners may be protected by pre-arrest bail. Page 2 of 6 5. Such submission is opposed by the learned counsel for the State. 6. It is apt to mention here that while dealing with the bail application of the Petitioner Nos.1 & 3 (Suresh Kothari & Sripal Kothari respectively) in ABLAPL Nos.7625 of 2023 & 7033 of 2023 respectively, this Court by common order dated 31.10.2023 had taken note of their complicity. For brevity paragraphs-4, 5 & 8 are culled out hereunder:- “4. The background facts of the case are that the complainant Manju Surana filed one 1CC Case No.5 of 2021 before the Court of the learned SDJM, Nuapada which was referred to the police under Section 156(3) of CrPC for registration and accordingly the same was registered against Jonk PS Case No.49 of 2022. It is further alleged that in the year 2002, when the complainant along with her husband had come to her parents’ house in Khariar Road to attend a family function, the accused persons, namely, Suresh Kothari along with his wife Kusum Kothari and Chartered Accountant Shripal Kothari, visited her parents’ house at Khariar Road and could convince her and her husband to invest shared in Rajat Buildcon India Pvt. Ltd., Durg, Chhattisgarh. As such, the complainant paid them, a cash of Rs.19,900/- instantly and they purchased shares in the said company being influenced by them. On 10.12.2002, the Page 3 of 6 complainant was allotted another 1990 shares in the said company. 5. On 30.03.2003, the complainant and Kusum Kothari retired from the post of the Directors of the company and at the same time, Petitioner Suresh Kothari and one Prakash Jayaswal of Kalkata were inducted as the Directors of the said company. In the year 2020 Rajat Surana downloaded the records from MCA and came to know that her mother is the shareholder of the company as per records in ROC, Bilaspur as he. Later he came to know that her mother is the shareholder of 2000 shares in Rajat Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. On 10.10.2007, the annual return of the company prepared by the Chartered Accountant Shripal Kothari i.e. the present Petitioner revealed that the 200 shares of the complainant has been illegally and fraudulently lessened to 100 the accused persons have shares and swallowed an amount of Rs.1,37,46,803/-. The rest 1000 shares of the complainant continued in her name till 2014 as per the Annual Return Report. Further, it was shown that out of the rest 1000 shares, 564 numbers of shares was shown in the name of the Petitioner Suresh Kothari and the rest 436 shares were shown in the name of the husband of the complainant Anjay Surana and in this manner the present Petitioners Shripal illegally and Kothari and Suresh Kothari fraudulently cheated the complainant for cash worth Rs.2,15,00,000/-. (Emphasized) 8. Having heard the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the Page 4 of 6 documents so also submissions made by the learned Additional Standing Counsel, there is material prima facie to deduce that the Petitioner along with Suresh Kothari have active participation in the affairs of the business. There is also material on record that apparently shows the shares held by the Informant got automatically reduced without their intervention in any manner as held in their names. Figures shown in the record originally held by the Informant that got reduced and held in the name of the father of the co-accused are matters of investigation and cannot be ignored taking a lame excuse calling it a dispute of civil nature. Admittedly, the part of dispute shown before the NCLAT has to be adjudicated by the said authority for alleged manipulation of share by crediting in favour of another reducing it from one of the shareholders without his intervention are act that involves criminal intent.” (Emphasized) 7. The Petitioner No.2 (Sidharth Kothari) was before this Court in ABLAPL No.6442 of 2023 which was disposed of by order dated 20.07.2023 as noted above and the allegations against him is that though he has resigned as one of the Directors of company in question, he still at the helms of the affairs of the company. 8. Taking into account the rival submissions and the filing of the charge sheet against all the Petitioners, which ex-facie lends credence to the submission of the learned counsel for the State as Page 5 of 6 well as the learned Senior Counsel for the Informant that there is a prima facie case against the Petitioners, this Court is persuaded to hold that from the very inception, the Petitioners had the mens rea to commit the offence. Hence, in the light of the modus operandi adopted and that the offence alleged is an economic offence, and the Petitioners have been cited as absconders in the charge sheet and considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Serious Fraud Investigation Officer vs. Aditya Sarda, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 764, this Court is not inclined to entertain the application of the Petitioners. However, in the event the Petitioners surrender before the learned Court in seisin in the aforesaid case and move an application for their release on bail, the same shall be considered on its own merits. 9. It is needles to state that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of considering the present pre-arrest bail applications and ought not to be construed as this Court expressing any view regarding the complicity of the Petitioners which, has to be adjudicated in an independent manner. 10. The ABLAPL is accordingly disposed of. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYESHA ROUT Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 30-Oct-2025 10:58:42 Ayesha (V. NARASINGH) Judge Page 6 of 6