(In the matter of applications under Section 483 of BNSS v. State of Odisha

Judgment

09.02.2026(ORAL) G. Satapathy, J.

1. These are the bail applications U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with CID Cyber Crime PS Case No.34 of 2024 corresponding to GR Case No.539 of 2024 pending in the file of learned JMFC(III), Cuttack, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.419/420/465/467/486/ BLAPL Nos.10424, 11090 & 11292 of 2025 471/120-B/34 of IPC r/w Sections 66(C)/66(D) of IT Act.

2. The relevant allegation as found in this case is that on coming across some lucrative Facebook advertisement to invest in stocks and IPOs, the informant when clicked a link received from Whatsapp account of Phone No.+91-9787120376, it was persuaded to him to open an account and invest in the said app namely “Jef CP” and, accordingly, the informant invested the amount on the greed for higher returns and in the process, he transferred a total sum of Rs.1,45,85,000/- to ten bank accounts w.e.f. May 05, 2024 to June 27, 2024, however, on suspicion he

verified and later on, lodged an FIR paving the way for registration of CID Cyber Crime PS Case No.34 of 2024 and in the course of investigation, finding the involvement of the petitioners in some way, they have been taken into custody, which ultimately led them to approached this Court for grant of bail in these bail applications.

3. In the course of hearing, Ms. Abhilipsa Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No.10424 of 2025 submits that the petitioner is not aware of any amount received in his account nor has he any role in deceiving the informant or causing loss to the informant, rather the petitioner being a bonafide account holder has not made any transaction BLAPL Nos.10424, 11090 & 11292 of 2025 with the amount so received in his account and a sum of Rs.12,25,000/- has been credited to his account in four transaction. Ms. Mohanty, accordingly, prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

3.1. Similarly, Mr. Rajendra Narayan Rout, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No.11090 of 2025 submits that a sum of Rs.73,500/- was credited to the account of the petitioner from co- accused Chandan Kumar Sahu, but he does not know as to how the amount has been credited to his account.

3.2. Similarly, Mr. Prasanta Kumar Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No.11292 of 2025 also submits that a sum of Rs.4,20,000/- was credited to the account of the petitioner, but as per the allegation on record, he has made withdrawal of Rs.3,00,000/-, however, he has also credited some amount in the account of petitioner-Ramahari Sahu.

3.3. Further, all the counsels appearing for the respective petitioners submit that the petitioners were in custody for a substantial period and in the meanwhile, charge-sheet has already been submitted, but all the offences alleged against them are triable by Magistrate and, therefore, the petitioners may kindly be granted bail. BLAPL Nos.10424, 11090 & 11292 of 2025 Page 3 of 6

3.4. In opposing the prayer for bail of the petitioners, Mr. Manoj Kumar Agrawalla, learned counsel for the informant by drawing attention of the Court to the transaction to the account of the petitioner, submits these petitioners being involved in fraudulent transaction made to their account, they are not entitled to be the benefit of bail. Mr. Agrawalla accordingly prays to reject the bail application of the petitioners.

3.5. In opposing the prayer for bail of the petitioners, Mr. C. Mohanty, learned Additional Public Prosecutor only reiterates the allegation leveled against the petitioners and prays to reject their bail applications.

4. After having considered submissions upon perusal of record, there appears some allegation against the petitioners for receiving some amount in their accounts, but the petitioners are in custody since 11/12.09.2025 and in the meantime, charge-sheet has already been submitted. Further, it is not brought to the notice of the Court that any of the petitioners, except the petitioner Chandan Kumar Sahu has withdrawn any amount, rather the allegation depicts that the petitioner-Deepak Kumar Dash has transferred a sum of Rs.4,15,000/- to the account of the petitioner Chandan Kumar Sahu. In the aforesaid facts and circumstance and taking into account the BLAPL Nos.10424, 11090 & 11292 of 2025 money trail involved in these cases and regard being had to the pre trial detention of the petitioners in custody and keeping in view the offences alleged against the petitioners being triable by Magistrate and taking into account the law laid down by the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vrs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2022) 10 SCC 51 and there being no material brought on record to indicate that the petitioners would abscond in the event of their grant of bail, this Court without expressing any view on merits admits each of the petitioners to bail.

5. Hence, these three bail applications of the petitioners namely Deepak Kumar Dash (In BLAPL No.10424 of 2025), Ramahari Sahu (In BLAPL No.11090 of 2025) and Chandan Kumar Sahu (In BLAPL No.11292 of 2025) are allowed and each of the petitioners is allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) 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:- (i) the petitioners in the course of trial shall attend the trial Court on each date of posting without fail unless 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 BLAPL Nos.10424, 11090 & 11292 of 2025 Page 5 of 6 Petitioners for offence U/S.269 of BNS, 2023 in accordance with law, (ii) the petitioners shall inform the Court as well as the Investigating Agency as to their places of residence during the trial by providing their mobile number(s), 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.

6. Accordingly, these BLAPLs stand disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules. (G. Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 9th day of February, 2026/Subhasmita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASMITA DAS Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 10-Feb-2026 14:03:12 BLAPL Nos.10424, 11090 & 11292 of 2025