[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Laxmipriya Parida vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 28 November, 2025
Author: V. Narasingh
Bench: V. Narasingh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ABLAPL No.6223 of 2025
Laxmipriya Parida .... Petitioner
Mr. R. Behera, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. C.R. Swain, AGA
Ms. D. Dhal, Advocate
(Informant)
CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
ORDER
28.11.2025
Order No.
03. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner,
learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for
the Informant.
2. The Petitioner is seeking pre-arrest bail in
connection with G.R Case No.272 of 2025 pending in
the Court of learned C.J.M., Malkangiri, arising out of
Malkangiri P.S. Case No.173 of 2025 for commission
of offence punishable under Sections 3(5)/318(4) of
BNS.
3. The allegation against the present Petitioner is
that she along with her husband, who are the
residence of Dhenkanal district, visited the Malkangiri
district and lured the ladies to form a group and
invest in the company called "DM Enterprises"
assuring them of higher returns.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the
co-accused Biswanath Sarangia is the in-charge of the
affairs of the company and on being persuaded by
said Biswanath Sarangia, the Petitioner and her
husband went to Malkangiri and persuaded the
villagers to make the deposit.
5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel
with vehemence that the husband of the Petitioner
was taken into custody in a connected matter and he
is in custody.
6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for
the Petitioner that the Petitioner has been arrayed as
an accused only because she is the spouse of the
principal accused. As such the Petitioner is a victim of
the circumstance "sinned against than sinning".
7. It is also stated that the Petitioner has two
children. Hence, taking into account the nature of
allegation and since Petitioner is a lady, leniency
ought to be shown to her.
8. Learned counsels for the State and the
Informant oppose such prayer.
9. It is brought to the notice of this Court that in
the meanwhile charge sheet has been filed and the
Petitioner has been cited as an absconder and
N.B.W(A) has been issued.
10. Learned counsel for the Informant also echoes
the submission of the learned counsel for the State
that taking into account the role ascribed, her plea of
innocence ought not to be considered.
11. This Court perused the statement of the
Complainant cited as C.W.1 as well as other charge
sheeted witnesses styled as investigation of witnesses
upto C.W.48. The common thread in all the
statements is that the present Petitioner along with
her husband have conducted the meeting and
persuaded the gullible to make the investment.
Hence, the bogie of being a victim of the
circumstances prima facie is not tenable.
12. It is also brought to the notice of this Court
that the Petitioner has been cited as an accused in
the following cases;
"1.Malkanagiri P.S. Case No.161 of 2025 under
Sections 318(4)/3(5) of BNS.
2. Malkanagiri P.S. Case No.172 of 2025 under
Sections 318(4)/3(5) of BNS.
3. Malkanagiri P.S. Case No.166 of 2025 under
Sections 318(4)/3(5) of BNS,
4. Malkanagiri P.S. Case No.165 of 2025 under
Sections 318(4)/3(5) of BNS.
5. Orkel P.S. Case No.92 of 2025 under
Sections 318(4)/3(5) of BNS."
13. Considering the nature of allegation and
keeping in view the judgment of the Apex Court in
the case of Serious Fraud Investigation Officer
vrs. Aditya Sarda, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 764 and
the offence being an economic offence and its societal
ramification, this Court is not inclined to entertain the
application for pre-arrest bail.
However, in the event the Petitioner
surrenders before the learned Court in seisin in the
aforesaid case and moves an application for his
release on bail, the same shall be considered on its
own merit.
14. It is needless to state that the observations
made hereinabove are only for the purpose of
consideration of the Petitioner prayer for pre-arrest
bail and the same ought not to be considered as this
Court expressing any opinion regarding complicity of
the Petitioner which has to be probed independently.
15. Accordingly, the ABLAPL stands disposed of.
(V. NARASINGH)
Judge
PKS
Signed by: PRADEEP KUMAR SWAIN
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 01-Dec-2025 14:51:22
