Soumya Ranjan Panda vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite Party
2025 Latest Caselaw 10863 Ori

Orissa High Court

Soumya Ranjan Panda vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite Party on 10 December, 2025

Author: G. Satapathy

Bench: G. Satapathy

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                     BLAPL No.6782 of 2025
   (In the matter of application under Section 483 of
   BNSS).

   Soumya Ranjan Panda                    ...          Petitioner
                              -versus-
   State of Odisha                        ... Opposite Party

   For Petitioner              : Mr. D. Panda, Advocate

   For Opposite Party          : Mr. P. Satpathy, Addl. PP
                                 Mr. S. Mohanty,
                                 Advocate(Informant)

       CORAM:
                    JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

                DATE OF HEARING : 09.12.2025
                DATE OF JUDGMENT : 10.12.2025

G. Satapathy, J.

1. This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the

Petitioner for grant of bail in connection with

Bariramchandrapur PS Case No.211 of 2025 arising out of

CT Case No.01 of 2025 for commission of offences

punishable U/Ss. 314/303(2)/316(4)/318(4) of BNS

pending in the Court of learned JMFC, Baripal, Jajpur, on

the main allegation of committing large scale financial

fraud to the tune of USD 1,25,000/- by setting up and

using his own Company FosGro Resources Ltd. in Zambia.

2. The present case arises out of an FIR lodged by

one Dharampal Singla, the Director FosGro Resources

Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, India before the IIC

Bariramchandrapur PS by stating inter-alia that the

Petitioner was appointed as Finance and Admin Manager

in their company on 19.02.2024 and was then transferred

to Company's partner Company namely, Igrow Resources

Ltd.,Zambia to manage all the activities of the partner

company in Zambia and he accordingly, continued to be

the Company's employees in India with salary paid to him

in India from the parent company, but on 28.02.2025,

the Petitioner with malafide intention opened a Company

in the same name FosGro Resources Ltd. in Zambia by

opening a bank account with First Capital Bank, Zambia.

It is further alleged by the informant that accordingly, on

31.03.2025 the Petitioner fraudulently took a refund of

USD 6.590/- from Safpack Packaging Solutions Ltd.,

Zambia in his fraudulent Company and on 14.04.2025, he

again illegally sold 20 tonnes of Urea Stock to Lusaka

Agrovet Ltd., Zambia and received payment of USD

11,100/- in his fraudulent Company's Bank Account. On

24.04.2025, the Petitioner again transferred USD

1,00,000/- from IGROW Resources Company's Bank

Account into his own fraudulent company's Bank Account

and accordingly, USD 99,990/- was credited to his

fraudulent Company's Bank Account on 25.04.2025 with

net bank charges of USD 10. It is further alleged that

from 11.04.2025 to 25.04.2025, the Petitioner had

withdrawn USD 46,000/- in cash from his Company's

Bank Account and remitted USD 69,000/- to his account

maintained at ICICI Bank Ltd. in Jajpur Branch (Odisha)

and he further transferred INR 20,00,000/- from his ICICI

Bank Account to his another SBI Bank Account, Kalpada

Branch, Jajpur. Further, the petitioner is alleged to have

stolen company's petty cash of approximately INR

20,00,000/-, company's assets like bank debit and credit

cards, laptop and Iphone containing Company's

confidential data, but on Iphone tracking, his Iphone was

found switched off on 10.05.2025 near Chandaka

Industrial Estate Patia, Bhubaneswar.

On the aforesaid FIR, Bariramchandrapur PS

Case No. 211 of 2025 was registered and the matter was

investigated into resulting in arrest of the Petitioner on

15.05.2025 with submission of charge sheet on

14.07.2025. The Petitioner being unsuccessful in securing

his bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Jajpur is

before this Court in this bail application.

3. Heard Mr. Devasish Panda, learned counsel for

the petitioner, Mr. Siddhant Mohanty, learned counsel for

the informant and Mr. P. Satpathy, learned Addl. Public

Prosecutor in the matter and perused the record.

4. After having considered the rival submissions

upon perusal of record, it appears that the informant has

alleged against the petitioner for cheating the company

by misappropriating its fund, but fact remains that right

now the trial has already commenced with examination of

two witnesses, however, it is brought to the notice of the

Court that the trial has been stayed by the order of this

Court in the meantime. Be that as it may, an interesting

issue/question touching upon the territorial jurisdiction of

the Court to try the case has cropped up in the course of

rival submissions inasmuch as it is advanced by Mr.

Panda that since the offences have been allegedly

committed by the petitioner in the country of Zambia, the

Court at Baripal Jajpur cannot proceed with the trial of

the case in view of the bar contained in Sec.188 of

CrPC/208 of BNSS, but such submission was countered

by learned counsel for the informant by contending

interalia that since the offences committed by the

petitioner are continuing offences, the Court at Baripal

Jajpur has ample jurisdiction to proceed against the

petitioner. In addressing such contention of the parties, it

is considered no more res integra that when an offence is

committed by an Indian citizen outside India, he may be

dealt with in respect of such offence as it had been

committed at any place within India, provided no such

offence shall be enquired into or tried in India except with

previous sanction of Central Government. The aforesaid

principle has been laid down in Sec.208 of BNSS (188 of

CrPC) which reads as under:-

208. Offence committed outside India

"When an offence is committed outside India-

(a) by a citizen of India, whether on the high seas or elsewhere; or

(b) by a person, not being such citizen, on any ship or aircraft registered in India, he may be dealt with in respect of such offence as if it had been committed at any place within India at which

he may be found or where the offence is registered in India:

Provided that notwithstanding anything in any of the preceding sections of this Chapter, no such offence shall be inquired into or tried in India except with the previous sanction of the Central Government".

Further, Sec.209 of BNSS (189 of CrPC) also

prescribes as under:-

209. Receipt of Evidence relating to offences committed outside India.

"When any offence alleged to have been committed in a territory outside India is being inquired into or tried under the provisions of section 208, the Central Government may, if it thinks fit, direct that copies of depositions made or exhibits produced, either in physical form or in electronic form, before a judicial officer, in or for that territory or before a diplomatic or consular representative of India in or for that territory shall be received as evidence by the Court holding such inquiry or trial in any case in which such Court might issue a commission for taking evidence as to the matters to which such depositions or exhibits relate".

5. It is worthwhile to state here that the affidavit

sworn in by the petitioner reveals that an FIR has been

lodged against him on 26.04.2025 at Emmasdale P.S.,

District-Lusaka, Republic of Zambia and pending before

learned Chief Resident Magistrate, Sub-ordinate Court,

Economic & Financial Crimes Division for having

committed an offence of "Theft by Servants" Contrary to

S-278 of the Penal Code, Ch-87 of the Laws of Zambia.

Thus, a careful scrutiny of the materials placed on record,

it is not in dispute and borne out from the record that

some part of the alleged transaction had in fact been

taken place in the country of Zambia as revealed from

the FIR averments, so also some Court at Zambia has

been approached by the informant. Further, the

document under Annexure-B filed by the informant

reveals that Zambia Police Service, Lusaka division head-

quarters has been reported by one Mr. Ansul Mehta for

theft by the Servant (petitioner) for a sum of USD

1,25,000(US Dollar). Besides, the document under

Annexure-C as filed by the informant also reveals that a

warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner

by the Sub-ordinate Court 1st Class, Zambia. It is also

alleged in the FIR that some amount withdrawn by the

petitioner from company's Bank account has been

deposited by the petitioner in his ICICI Bank account in

Jajpur Branch, Odisha & SBI Bank account at Kaipada

Branch, Jajpur. However, this Court does not consider it

proper to decide the jurisdictional issue, but finds the

allegation by the informant against the petitioner prima

facie constitute some offence in India, since it is stated in

the charge-sheet that one laptop, iPhone, power bank,

earphone, hard disks, ATM cards of different banks were

seized from the possession of the petitioner and it was

alleged that the petitioner had stolen away company's

bank debit and credit cards, laptop, iPhone containing

with confidential data.

6. One thing also comes to the mind of the Court

that when the Court at Zambia is in seisin over part of

the matter/transaction, whether the Court in India would

be having jurisdiction to proceed against the petitioner,

but the answer would be "Yes", since sub Sec.6 of

Sec.337 of BNSS (300 of CrPC) prescribes that nothing in

the section shall affect the provision of Sec.26 of the

General Clauses Act, 1897/ Sec.208 of this Sanhita and

Sec.337 of BNSS (300 of CrPC) provides that the person

once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for the same

offence. Similarly, Article 20(2) of the Constitution of

India says that no person shall be prosecuted and

punished for the same offence more than a once. The

aforesaid exception as provided in Sec.337(6) of BNSS

makes it very clear that if the person who is an Indian

citizen has committed an offence beyond India, he can

still be prosecuted in India, as if the offence had been

committed within India. Furthermore, the bar as

aforesaid will be applicable only when a person has been

tried by a Court competent jurisdiction for an offence and

has been convicted or acquitted of such offence and he is

going to be tried again for such offence, but in this case,

the petitioner is yet to be prosecuted in any foreign

country, although a criminal case has been registered

against him in the country of Zambia. Besides, the

aforesaid bar will not be applicable since the acts done by

such person beyond India may be an offence in that

country for violation of law, but the same may not be an

offence or different offence in our country and vice-versa,

however, the alleged acts of such person may be a

different offence by the law of that country, but the same

acts in India may be another offence. On a conspectus of

the allegation leveled against the petitioner in this case, it

is very much clear that the bar of double jeopardy would

not be attracted in this case.

7. Moreover, the allegations leveled by the

informant against the petitioner disclose that some part

of the transaction has been taken place in Zambia and

some part in India, but in that situation, what should be

the role of the Court in approaching such case has been

clarified in Thota Venkateswarlu Vrs. State of Andhra

Pradesh through Principal Secretary and Another;

(2011) 9 SCC 527, wherein the Apex Court in a

situation of commission of continuing offence has been

pleased to hold in Paragraphs 17 & 18 as under:-

"17. It may also be indicated that the provisions of the Penal Code have been extended to offences committed by any citizen of India in any place within and beyond India by virtue of Section 4 thereof. Accordingly, the offences committed in Botswana by an Indian citizen would also be amenable to the provisions of the Penal Code, subject to the limitation imposed under the proviso to Section 188 CrPC.

18. Having regard to the above, while we see no reason to interfere with the High Court's decision to reject the petitioner's prayer for quashing of the proceedings in Complaint Case No. 307 of 2007, we also make it clear that the learned Magistrate may proceed with the trial relating to the offences alleged to have been committed in India. However, in respect of the offences alleged to have been committed outside India, the learned Magistrate shall not proceed with the trial without the sanction of the Central Government as envisaged in the proviso to Section 188 CrPC".

8. In this case, it is not in dispute that the trial has

already commenced with examination of two witnesses,

but the petitioner is in custody since 15.05.2025,

however, certainly the petitioner cannot be prosecuted

for the acts committed by him in Zambia without

obtaining prior sanction from the Central Government

U/S.208 of BNSS (188 of CrPC). Looking at the allegation

levelled against the petitioner and the alleged acts

committed by him in India in relation to the FIR lodged

by the informant and the articles of the company, such as

Laptop, iphone having already been recovered and seized

and keeping in view the inherent right of the petitioner to

be presumed innocent until proven guilty at the trial and

there being no custodial interrogation required in this

case and the petitioner having already sworn an affidavit

to submit to the jurisdiction of the Court at Zambia

subject to release of his passport which has been seized

in this case and regard being had to the offences being

triable by Magistrate, but trial having stayed in the

meantime as informed by the parties and the offences

being not punishable with death or imprisonment for life

and following the well recognized principle "bail is the

rule, but jail is the exception", this Court without

expressing any view on merit admits the petitioner to

bail, however, subject to certain conditions.

9. Hence, the bail application of the Petitioner

stands allowed and he is allowed to go on bail on

furnishing bail bonds of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five

Lakhs) 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 petitioner shall not commit similar type of offence while on bail,

(ii) the petitioner shall surrender to the jurisdiction of the Court of Zambia, if he is acquitted of the charge in this case, but in case of conviction, his submission to the jurisdiction of the Court at Zambia must be in accordance with law and the rules governing the field,

(iii) the Petitioner shall inform the Court as well as the Investigating Agency as to his place of residence during the trial by providing his mobile number(s), residential address, e-mail, if any, and other documents in support of proof of his residence. The Petitioner shall not change his address of

residence without intimating to the Court and Investigating Agency and

(iv) the petitioner shall report attendance before the Jurisdictional Police Station once in a month preferably on a Sunday in between 10 A.M. to 12 Noon till disposal of the case.

The I.I.C. of Jurisdictional Police Station shall

not detain the petitioner unnecessarily after recording his

attendance beyond the time as stipulated. It is clarified

that the condition No. (iv) has in fact been imposed

against the petitioner to secure his presence in the Court

as it has been brought to the notice of the Court that

some Court at Zambia has issued warrant against the

petitioner.

10. Accordingly, the bail application stands

disposed of.

(G. Satapathy) Judge

Reason: AuthenticationOrissa High Court, Cuttack,

Orissa, Cuttack the 10th December, 2025/Jayakrushna Date: 10-Dec-2025 17:49:55