The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL NO.10745 of 2025 (In the matter of application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023). Dillip Kumar Nayak … Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha … Opposite Party For Petitioner : Mr. D. Panda, Advocate For Opposite Party : Mr. M.K. Mohanty, Addl. PP Mr. B.R. Mohanty, Advocate (Informant) CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:22.12.2025(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 EOW PS Case No.13 of 2025 corresponding to CT Case No.16 of 2025 pending in the file of learned PO OPID Court, Cuttack, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.406/420/467/468/471 of IPC, on the main allegation of deceitfully inducing the informant and his wife with false assurance to provide good returns for BLAPL No.10745 of 2025 Page 1 of 8 investment in real-estate business and in the process, managing to dupe them for Rs.12,42,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Crores Forty Two Lakhs only) by misappropriating the investment of the informant and his wife on the pretext of purchasing land in their name, but purchasing the land in his own name and siphoning part of the amount taken from the informant. 2.
Legal Reasoning
In the course of hearing, Mr. Devashis Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation on record in fact appears to be civil in nature, but has been given the colour of criminal case, when the informant has failed to obtain an injunction order against the petitioner over a civil dispute existing between them and the petitioner, therefore, having detained in custody for a substantial period may kindly be granted bail. 2.1. In opposing the prayer for bail, Mr. C. Mohanty, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that not only the petitioner has duped the informant for crores of rupees, but also there is sufficient material available against the petitioner for proceeding against BLAPL No.10745 of 2025 Page 2 of 8 him in a criminal case and right now, the investigating being going on, the prayer for bail of the petitioner may kindly be rejected. 2.2. On the other hand, Mr. Bibhuti Ranjan Mohanty, learned counsel for the informant submits in vehemence that the petitioner has in fact not only cheated the informant by taking his hard-earned money, but also has forged documents to siphon crores of rupees of the informant and his wife which is evident from the dishonored of numbers of cheques issued by the petitioner for insufficient fund/differing of signatures of the petitioner. Mr. Mohanty accordingly prays to reject the bail application of the petitioner. 3. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against the petitioner for duping the informant and his wife for a sum of Rs.12,42,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Crores Forty Two Lakhs only) and right now the investigation is going on, however, this Court reminds that the statutory provisions of bail confers wide discretion on the Court either to grant or refuse BLAPL No.10745 of 2025 Page 3 of 8 bail to the applicant, but such exercise of discretion should not be arbitrary or de hors the basic principles laid down by different constitutional Courts in a catena of decision. The parameters under which the discretion has to be considered has been elucidated by the Apex Court in the decision relied on by the informant in the case of Prasanta Kumar Sarkar Vrs. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr : (2010) 14 SCC 496, wherein the Apex Court in Paragraph 9 has held as under:- “9. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: (i) Whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the Accused had committed the offence; (ii) Nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) Severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) Danger of the Accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) Character, behavior, means, position and standing of the Accused; (vi) Likelihood of the offence being repeated; BLAPL No.10745 of 2025 Page 4 of 8 (vii) Reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) Danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.” 4. Additionally, in Jagjeet Singh & Ors. Vrs. Ashish Mishra & Ors.; 2022 9 SCC 321; while emphasizing the duty of the Court and relevant consideration for bail, the Apex Court at Paragraphs 27 and 33 has held as under:- “27. We may, at the outset, clarify that power to grant bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., is one of wide amplitude. A High Court or a Sessions Court, as the case may be, are bestowed with considerable discretion while deciding an application for bail. But, as has been held by this Court on multiple occasions, this discretion is not unfettered. On the contrary, the High Court or the Sessions Court must grant bail after the application of a judicial mind, following well-established principles, and not in a cryptic or mechanical manner. 33. Before dealing with the case at hand, we may, at the cost of repetition, emphasise that a Court while deciding an application for bail, should refrain from evaluating or undertaking a detailed assessment of evidence, as the same is not a relevant consideration at the threshold stage. While a Court may examine prima facie issues, reasonable grounds whether the Accused committed an offence or the severity of the offence itself, an extensive consideration of merits which has the potential to prejudice either the case of the prosecution or the defence, is undesirable. It is thus deemed including any BLAPL No.10745 of 2025 Page 5 of 8 appropriate to outrightly clarify that neither have we considered the merits of the case nor are we inclined to comment on the evidence collected by the SIT in the present case.” 5. On applying the aforesaid precedents, it appears that the petitioner has been implicated in this case for commission of offence U/Ss.406/420/467/468/ 471 of the IPC and the allegation relates back to the year 2019 to 2022 with registration of FIR in the year 2023, but the petitioner was arrested only on 19.08.2025. Besides, the petitioner is allegedly involved in another case vide Baranga PS Case No. 36 of 2025 for similar type of offence. It is also alleged that the petitioner has issued certain cheques in favour of the informant, but the said cheques were dishonored. No doubt, it is argued that civil dispute has been given the colour of criminal case, but law is well settled that when the intention of the party is to deceive the complainant from the very inception of the transaction, the accused cannot take the umbrage of civil/contractual dispute to shield his action from criminal liability. Since the investigation of the case is going on, there is BLAPL No.10745 of 2025 Page 6 of 8 apprehension of tampering the process of investigation by influencing the witnesses. Besides, the offence U/S. 467 of the IPC prescribes maximum punishment of imprisonment for life. 6. In considering the bail to the applicant, the Court cannot close its eyes to the criminal antecedent of such applicant in view of the law laid down in Azwar Vrs. Waseen; 2024 10 SCC 768, wherein the Apex Court in Paragraph 26 has held as under:- to “26.while considering as to whether, bail ought to be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of accusations made against the accused, the manner in which crime to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role the criminal the accused, attributed antecedents of the accused, the probability of tempering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the Court of justice and the overall desirability of releasing the accused on bail.” 7. In view of the above facts and taking into account the nature and gravity of the offences as alleged against the petitioner vis-(cid:224)-vis the accusation sought to be brought against him and on going through BLAPL No.10745 of 2025 Page 7 of 8 the materials placed on record keeping in view the continuation of investigation and there being another case of similar nature reported against the petitioner and taking into account the magnitude of fraud/cheating amount running to crores of rupees and regard being had to the materials collected in support of the allegation against the petitioner and considering the totality of the materials placed on record, this Court does not consider it proper to grant bail to the petitioner. 8. Hence, the bail application of the petitioner stands rejected. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands
Decision
disposed of. (G. Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 22nd day of December, 2025/Subhasmita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASMITA DAS Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 23-Dec-2025 19:34:58 BLAPL No.10745 of 2025 Page 8 of 8