Orissa High Court
Pallavi Mishra @ Pallavi Hota vs State Of Odisha (Opid) .... Opposite ... on 30 May, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 30-May-2025 17:08:08
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.1294 of 2025
Pallavi Mishra @ Pallavi Hota .... Petitioner (s)
& Anr.
Yasobanta Das, Sr. Adv.
Along with
Mr. Nirmal Chandra Mohanty , Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha (OPID) .... Opposite Party(s)
Mr. J.P. Patra, SC (for OPID)
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Order ORDER
No. 30.05.2025
04.
F.I.R. Dated Police StationCase No. and Sections
No. Courts' Name
131 11.03.2022 Dhenkanal P.S. Case No. 131 Sections
Town of 2022 (later re- 420, 406,
corresponding registered as 467, 468,
to EOW, EOW P.S. Case 471, 506 and
Odisha, No. 10 of 2022 120-B/34 of
Bhubaneswar and C.T. Case No. IPC read
4 of 2022 with
Sections 4, 5
and 6 of the
PCMCS
Act and
Section 6 of
the OPID
Act.
1.
This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
3. The Petitioners, Directors of M/s Purple Qualves Financial Services Pvt.
Ltd., have been in judicial custody since March and May, 2022
respectively, in connection with Dhenkanal Town P.S. Case No. 131 of
2022 (later re-registered as EOW P.S. Case No.10 of 2022, corresponds to
C.T. Case No. 4 of 2022) for commission of offences under Sections 420,
406, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B/34 IPC read with Sections 4, 5, 6 of the
PCMCS Act and Section 6 of the OPID Act.
4. The FIR was lodged by one Kamalakanta Sahoo, who along with others
had invested in the company from 2018, alleging false promises of high
returns, bounced cheques, and threats upon demand for repayment. A
charge sheet was filed on 11.07.2022 with 33 witnesses, out of which
only 5 have been examined till date, causing prolonged trial delay.
Petitioners' earlier bail pleas were rejected, and although the High Court
noted slow trial progress, it directed the lower court to expedite
proceedings. The Supreme Court allowed liberty to renew bail if no
substantial progress occurred by January 2025. The petitioners maintain
that their continued incarceration without trial for over 2 years is
unjustified.
5. The Petitioners argue that the entire dispute is civil in nature arising out
of investment agreements voluntarily entered into by educated
individuals (engineers, doctors, Government servants), including the
informant. Clause 6 of the agreement includes an indemnity clause, and
Clause 1 clearly shows that the company acted as an agent, similar to
mutual fund investments. Market volatility and risk were inherent and
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
known; returns diminished only post-2020 due to adverse market
conditions. It is contended that the OPID Act does not apply since the
transactions involved were investments in the share market, not
"deposits" as defined under Section 2(b).
6. The Petitioners have been in custody for nearly 3 years without
significant progress in trial (only 5 out of 33 witnesses examined).
Continued incarceration violates Article 21 of the Constitution. Citing
Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb1, S.K. Antil v. C.B.I.2, and Sanjay Chandra
v. C.B.I.3, they argue that bail should not be denied merely due to the
gravity of the offence, particularly when the trial is delayed and there is
no risk of flight or tampering with evidence. They also reference High
Court bail orders in similar cases where allegations included forgery
and misappropriation. They argue that the FIR was lodged out of
frustration over market losses, and that criminal law is being misused as
a recovery tool. There is no evidence of inducement or dishonest
intention by the petitioners at the time of agreement, which negates the
ingredients of cheating under Section 420 IPC.
7. The State opposes bail as the Petitioners are accused of serious economic
offences involving public money, attracting provisions of the IPC and
OPID Act. Such offences have wide social impact, and with several
witnesses yet to be examined, there is a risk of tampering. Given the
gravity of charges, bail should not be granted at this stage.
(2021) 3 SCC 713.
(2022) 10 SCC 51.
(2012) 1 SCC 40.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
8. Having considered the submissions of both sides, this Court is conscious
of the fact that the allegations pertain to misappropriation of funds
collected from members of the public under the guise of high-return
investments, thereby involving a significant element of public money
and trust. In matters of economic offences, particularly those attracting
provisions of the OPID Act, the Court must tread with caution, as such
crimes strike not only at the individuals defrauded but also at the
broader financial credibility of institutions and investment systems.
9. While the delay in trial is evident, the gravity of the offence, the scale of
alleged deceit, and the unresolved examination of key witnesses raise a
serious apprehension of interference with the process of justice.
Moreover, given the petitioners' control over corporate financial
channels and the high mobility of white-collar offenders, the possibility
of absconding or manipulating the course of trial cannot be ruled out.
Bail, in such circumstances, if granted prematurely, may amount to an
erosion of public confidence in judicial oversight of financial crimes.
10. Highlighting the gravity of economic offences, the Supreme Court
remarked in the case of State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitmalji Porwal
and Anr4 as follows:
"5...The entire community is aggrieved if the economic
offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought
to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment
upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is
committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with
an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to
1987 AIR 1321.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
the community. A disregard for the interest of the
community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting
the trust and faith of the community in the system to
administer justice in an even- handed manner without fear
of criticism from the quarters which view white collar
crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done
to the national economy and national interest."
11. In view of these compelling observations, it is abundantly clear that a
different approach must be adopted in addressing offences of this
nature. Hence, in this regard, it would be prudent to also refer to the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy
v. CBI5:
"34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to
be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The
economic offence having deep rooted conspiracies and
involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed
seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the
economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing
serious threat to the financial health of the country.
35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the
nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support
thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction
will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances
which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of
securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable
apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the
larger interests of the public/State and other similar
considerations."
12. Keeping the abovementioned precedent to the case in hand, this Court
cannot lose sight of the fundamental distinction between routine
AIR 2013 SUPREME COURT 1933.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
criminal cases and those involving economic fraud of considerable
magnitude. The present matter concerns not a stray act of criminality
but an alleged orchestrated financial deception, cloaked in corporate
legitimacy, targeting the trust of individuals who placed their money
into what was promised as a secure and lucrative investment. When
such confidence is betrayed and the allegations pertain to systematic
siphoning of public funds through forged instruments and misleading
representations, the ripple effects extend far beyond the confines of a
mere civil breach. The harm caused is not just monetary, it is structural,
undermining public faith in financial institutions and in the rule of law.
13. Furthermore, the petitioners, by virtue of their directorial roles, are not
mere employees or intermediaries; they were at the helm of the
operation, controlling both the narrative and the financial conduits
through which investments flowed. The very nature of such economic
operations entails a degree of sophistication and mobility that is not
typically seen in conventional crimes. It is not far-fetched to assume that
such individuals possess both the means and networks to evade the
reach of law, should they choose to do so. The Court is not required to
wait for the accused to disappear to acknowledge the flight risk; it is
enough that such risk is real and supported by circumstances.
14. The law cannot afford to be blind to this danger. While personal liberty
is a cherished right under Article 21, it cannot be an instrument to
legitimize the subversion of justice, particularly when there remains a
genuine concern regarding tampering with witnesses, derailing the trial,
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
and insulating the truth behind a labyrinth of financial engineering. This
Court must act not only as an adjudicator but also as a custodian of
public trust, and in doing so, cannot allow liberty to be weaponized
against accountability.
15. Therefore, viewed through the lens of judicial prudence, public interest,
and the need to maintain integrity in economic jurisprudence, the Court
finds that the Petitioners have not made out a compelling case for grant
of bail at this stage.
16. The BLAPL is, accordingly, dismissed.
( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi )
Vacation Judge
