[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Sudhir Kumar Marandi vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 9 December, 2025
Author: V. Narasingh
Bench: V. Narasingh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ABLAPL No. 12670 of 2025
Sudhir Kumar Marandi .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Dasmohapatra, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. S. Panda, ASC
ABLAPL No. 12716 of 2025
Dillip Kumar Baral .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Dasmohapatra, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. S. Panda, ASC
ABLAPL No. 12718 of 2025
Manoj Kumar Mohanty .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Dasmohapatra, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. S. Panda, ASC
ABLAPL No. 12720 of 2025
Page 1 of 6
Rabindra Kumar ... Petitioner
Patra
Mr. S. Dasmohapatra, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha ... Opposite Party
Mr. S. Panda, ASC
ABLAPL No. 12862 of 2025
Kuldeep Singh ... Petitioner
Panwar .
Mr. H. Panda, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha ... Opposite Party
.
Mr. S. Panda, ASC
ABLAPL No. 13120 of 2025
Sarada Prasad Dash ... Petitioner
.
Mr. S. Dasmohapatra, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha ... Opposite Party
.
Mr. S. Panda, ASC
ABLAPL No. 13833 of 2025
Madhusudan Patra ... Petitioner
.
Mr. S. Dalua, Advocate
Page 2 of 6
-versus-
State of Odisha ... Opposite Party
.
Mr. S. Panda, ASC
CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
ORDER
09.12.2025
Order No.
02. 1. Since all the ABLAPLs relate to the same FIR,
on the consent of the parties, they are taken up
together and disposed of by this common order.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and
learned counsel for the State.
3. The Petitioner is seeking pre-arrest bail in
connection with C.T. Case No.17 of 2025 pending on
the file of learned Presiding Officer, Designated Court
under OPID Act, Cuttack, arising out of E.O.W.
Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No.14 of 2025 for
commission of offences punishable under Sections
420/467/468/471/120-B of IPC and Section 4/5/6 of
PCMC (Banning) Act and Section 21(1)/21(3) and
Section 23 of BUDS Act read with Section 66(D) of IT
Act.
4. The running thread in all the Petitioners is that
the Petitioners are more or less victims of the
circumstances.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsels for the
respective Petitioners that lured by the promises
made by Hedgex Fund LLP of which one Mr. Dinesh
Jain and Mr. Kuldeep Singh Panwar, the Petitioner in
ABLAPL No.12862 of 2025 claim to be the directors,
they visited Odisha several times and conducted
meetings and lured investors to make deposits
assuring them of higher interest.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
Petitioner in ABLAPL No.12862 of 2025 that the
allegation against the said Petitioner that he is the
director is incorrect.
7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
Petitioners that all the Petitioners have in fact made
deposits in the account of the said LLP and since they
did not get the returns as assured, the Petitioners
have instituted complaints.
It is submitted by the learned counsel that in
the accusation vis-à-vis the Petitioners is to be
considered in the above light and taking into account
the nature of allegations, the Petitioners may be
protected by pre-arrest bail.
8. Learned counsel for the State opposes the
prayer for pre-arrest bail and submits that taking into
account the nature of allegations and that the
investigation is at a nascent stage and its pan-India
ramifications, the Petitioners ought not to be
ensconced by pre-arrest bail.
9. This Court is conscious of the recent dictum of
the Apex Court in the recent Satendra Kumar Antil
Vrs. Central Bureau of Investigation; 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 452 while appreciating a prayer for pre-
arrest bail.
The same can be respectfully referred to as
under:-
"11................we would like to clarify that
what we have enunciated qua bail would
equally apply to anticipatory bail cases.
Anticipatory bail after all is one of the
species of a bail."
10. It is apt to note that Apex Court in the case of
Satendra Kumar Antil Vrs. Central Bureau of
Investigation; (2021) 10 SCC 773, while dealing
with cases of accused in custody has identified
economic offences as a separate class.
This Court finds force in the submission of the
learned counsel for the State once the Petitioners are
ensconced by pre-arrest bail the further investigation
in unearthing their roles in the case at hand would
become farcical.
11. Taking into account the nature of allegations
and keeping in view the judgment of the Apex Court
in the said regard and most recently in the case of
Serious Fraud Investigation Officer vrs. Aditya
Sarda; 2025 SCC OnLine SC 764, this Court is not
persuaded to hold that the Petitioners are entitled to
be protected by pre-arrest bail.
12. The ABLAPLs are accordingly rejected.
13. It is needless to state that the observations
made herein are only for the purpose of consideration
of the prayer of the Petitioners for pre-arrest bail and
it ought not to be construed as this Court expressing
any view regarding their complicity which has to be
established in an independent manner.
(V. NARASINGH)
Judge
Jina
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 11-Dec-2025 14:44:40
