Adarsh Agrawal vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party
2025 Latest Caselaw 10469 Ori

Orissa High Court

Adarsh Agrawal vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 26 November, 2025

Author: V. Narasingh

Bench: V. Narasingh

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

           ABLAPL No.7416 of 2025

Adarsh Agrawal           ....           Petitioner
                  Mr. B.P. Tripathy, Sr. Advocate
                            Mr. S. Das, Advocate

                   -versus-

State of Odisha          ....     Opposite Party
                              Mr. S. Panda, ASC


           ABLAPL No.7959 of 2025

Virendra Kumar Singh     ....           Petitioner
                    Mr. J. Patnaik, Sr. Advocate
                   Mr.T.K. Pattanayak, Advocate

                   -versus-

State of Odisha          ....     Opposite Party
                              Mr. S. Panda, ASC


           ABLAPL No.9659 of 2025

Shrawan Kumar Singh      ....           Petitioner
                       Mr. S. Mohanty, Advocate
                       Mr. R. Sharma, Advocate

                   -versus-

State of Odisha          ....     Opposite Party
                              Mr. S. Panda, ASC



                                               Page 1 of 8
            ABLAPL No.9695 of 2025

Yogesh Pradhan @         ....         Petitioner
Jogesh Chandra
Pradhan
                       Mr. S. Mohanty, Advocate
                       Mr. R. Sharma, Advocate

                   -versus-

State of Odisha          ....    Opposite Party
                              Mr. S. Panda, ASC


           ABLAPL No.9722 of 2025

Sukanta Sahu @           ....         Petitioner
Sukanta Kumar
Pradhan
                       Mr. S. Mohanty, Advocate
                       Mr. R. Sharma, Advocate

                   -versus-

State of Odisha          ....    Opposite Party
                              Mr. S. Panda, ASC

           ABLAPL No.9732 of 2025

Rajiv Ranjan Kumar @     ....         Petitioner
Rajeev Kumar
                       Mr. S. Mohanty, Advocate
                       Mr. R. Sharma, Advocate

                   -versus-

                                             Page 2 of 8
              State of Odisha             ....          Opposite Party
                                                Mr. S. Panda, ASC

                        CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

                                  ORDER

26.11.2025 Order No.

05. 1. Since all these ABLAPLs relate to the same FIR, on the consent of the parties, they are taken up together and are disposed of by this common order.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

3. The Petitioners are seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with C.T Case No.1247 of 2025 pending on the file of learned S.D.J.M., Jharsuguda corresponding to Lakhanpur P.S. Case No.123 of 2025 under Sections 296/308(5)/61(2) of BNS.

4. The allegation in essence is that the present Petitioners were conjointly extorting money to cover the alleged loss suffered by one of the co-accused, namely, Nandkishor Agrawal in submitting tender for transportation of coal from MCL.

It is alleged by the prosecution that a sum of Rs.145/- per truck was being illegally collected and confirmation of such payment was reflected by a stamp "LSS" affixed on the documents of transportation and only thereafter, the trucks were allowed to enter MCL premises.

It is also alleged that unless there was such stamp in the challan, the trucks could not enter the premises of the MCL to carry out transportation of coal.

5. Referring to the statement of the Complainant, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the State that a prima facie case is well made out under the alleged sections including under Sections 308(5) of BNS1 for which maximum punishment prescribed is 10 years. As such no leniency ought to be shown to the Petitioners.

6. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that admittedly none of the Petitioners are named accused. Hence, the same ought to be taken into account while considering the prayer for pre- arrest bail.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State, Mr. Panda, learned ASC submits that it is the settled position of law that FIR cannot be treated as an encyclopedia. Since the Petitioners' complicity has come to fore in committing the alleged offence in a concerted manner, the modus operandi adopted by them ought not to be lost sight of.

8. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Tripathy being assisted by Mr. Das, learned

308. Extortion.

(5) Whoever commits extortion by putting any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to that person or to any other, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

counsel for the Petitioner in ABLAPL No.7416 of 2025 that the Petitioner is cited as an accused only because he is the son of Nandkishor Agrawal. 8-A. Mr. Patnaik, learned Senior Counsel being assisted by Mr. Pattanayak, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner in ABLAPL No.7959 of 2025 submits that the Petitioner is admittedly the General Manager of MCL and posted on 17.3.2025 just one day before institution of the FIR in question. 8-B. Petitioners in ABLAPL Nos.9659, 9695, 9722 and 9732 of 2025 are the Project Manager, Technical Inspector, Assistant Manager and Nodal Officer of I- IBL, OCP, MCL, Lakhanpur area respectively.

9. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioners that even if the entire allegation of the prosecution is accepted at its face value, prima facie there is no complicity of the Petitioners in the case at hand. Hence, they may be protected by pre-arrest bail and the prosecution is indulging in witch-hunting on extraneous considerations.

10. Such submission is opposed by the learned counsel for the State, Mr. Panda, learned ASC referring to the confessional statements of the Petitioners in which they acknowledged that in a well concerted conspiracy they covered the alleged loss of Nandkishor Agrawal of IBL Company who was the

successful bidder who, submitted tender 99% less than the estimated value.

11. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the State that taking into account the nature of allegations qua all the Petitioners unless they are subjected to custodial interrogation, further investigation would become fanciful. Hence, they ought not to be protected by pre-arrest bail.

12. It is brought to the notice of this Court that one of the co-accused Nandkishor Agrawal was taken into custody and has since been released on bail by this Court by order dated 29.07.2025 in BLAPL No.7177 of 2025. Referring to the same, it is submitted that since all the Petitioners are the co- accused, no leniency ought to be shown to them on the ground of parity. Hence, their anticipatory bail applications do not merit consideration. 12-A. It is trite that merely because the co-accused has been taken into custody, there is no thumb rule that often co-accused irrespective of the allegations against them have to suffer the same fate.

13. The approach of the Courts in considering the application for pre-arrest bail has been reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vrs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another2, The Apex Court has clarified that the directions qua

2023 SCC Online SC 452

post arrest bail shall apply in equal measure to cases of anticipatory bail and the observation in this regard which is germane is extracted hereunder;

"..........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".

Hence, the rival contentions have to be examined on the basis of the guidelines as set forth by the Apex Court as noted above.

14. Save and except the confessional statement of the Petitioners, there is no other material to indicate the complicity of the Petitioners.

15. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that in the case of similar nature that too with graver allegations under Sections 308(5)/111(2)(b)/61(2)(a) of BNS in Belpahar P.S. Case No.152 of 2025, the investigating agency has chosen to take recourse to the provisions of Section 35(3) of the BNSS. The same may be taken into account in considering the present bail applications since the Petitioners have joined the investigation .

Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Panda submits that the same is irrelevant.

16. Considering the materials qua the Petitioners which are on record, this Court is not persuaded to hold that in the light of the allegations as made and

adjudicating the same on the touchstone of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra), their prayer for pre-arrest bail is to be declined.

17. On a perspicuous analysis of the materials on record, it is directed that on surrendering within three weeks hence and moving for bail, the Petitioners shall be released on bail by the learned Court in seisin on such terms as deemed just and proper with further conditions that the Petitioners shall continue to assist in the investigation and shall appear before the I.O as and when summoned.

18. It is needless to state that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of consideration of the Petitioners' prayer for pre-arrest bail and the same ought not to be considered as this Court expressing any opinion regarding complicity of the Petitioners which has to be probed independently.

19. The ABLAPLs are accordingly disposed of.

(V. NARASINGH) Judge

PKS

Signed by: PRADEEP KUMAR SWAIN

Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 27-Nov-2025 21:55:16