Orissa High Court
Unknown vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite Party on 10 November, 2025
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL Nos.2762 & 1920 of 2025
(In the matter of applications U/S.483 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Act, 2023).
Matru Prasad Sethy @ Nanda
@ Sethi
(In BLAPL No.2762 of 2025)
Gopal Kumar Shaw @ Gopal Shaw
(In BLAPL No.1920 of 2025) ... Petitioners
Mr. J. Sahu, Advocate
(in BLAPL No.2762 of 2025)
Mr. P.K. Senapati, Advocate
(in BLAPL No.1920 of 2025)
-versus-
State of Odisha ... Opposite Party
Mr. M.K. Mohanty, Addl. PP
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
F DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:10.11.2025(ORAL)
G. Satapathy, J.
1. Since these two bail applications arise out
of one and same case record, the same are heard
together and disposed of by this common order with
the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. These are the bail applications U/S.483 of
BNSS by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection
with Cyber Crime & Economic Offences, Balangir PS
Case No.01 of 2025 arising out of GR Case No.105 of
2025 pending in the Court of learned SDJM, Balangir,
for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.204/
318(4)/ 319(2)/ 337/ 338/ 336(3)/ 339/ 340(2)/ 341/
342/ 61(2) of BNS.
3. The present case arise out of an FIR lodged
by one Sanjay Kumar Sahoo stating inter-alia that the
petitioner-Chittaranjan Nanda had approached him for
taking his (informant) house on rent by claiming
himself to be the Chief Engineer, CPWD, Bhubaneswar
and took his(informant) house on rent by impressing
upon him(informant) about deposit receipt of Rs.4
Crores 50 Lakhs in his SBI account, Bhubaneswar and
in the process, gained the confidence of the informant
and subsequently took a sum of Rs.3.3 Lakhs from the
informant for some work and, thereafter, he showed
the informant a link regarding Rs.1400 Crores and
Rs.20 Crores to be likely to be received by him on
payment of Rs.30 Lakhs and in the process, took Rs.20
Lakhs from the informant to obtain a superclass
contractor licence from the CPWD, Bhubaneswar for
him(informant). In the process, gaining the confidence
of the informant, the petitioner took over Rs.85 Lakhs
32 Thousand from the informant by claiming that funds
were coming to his account from Abroad and he
additionally also took Rs.45 Lakhs from the informant
on some pretext.
After registration of FIR, when the matter was
investigated into, the criminal conspiracy of the
Chittaranjan Nanda @ Matru Prasad Sethy with co-
accused person was surfaced, since they by inducing
unemployed youth and job seekers to join National
Intelligence Bureau (NIB) were taking Rs.5,000/- to
7,000/- towards registration fees, but later on all the
certificates and documents produced by the petitioners
were found to be fake and forged.
4. In the course of hearing, Mr. Prasanta
Kumar Senapati, learned counsel for the petitioner in
BLAPL No.1920 of 2025 submits that there is in fact no
allegation against the petitioner regarding cheating any
youth and all the material allegations are directed
against co-accused Chittaranjan Nanda for substantially
cheating the gullible youths and the informant. It is
further submitted by Mr. Senapati that since the
petitioner has already been detained in custody for
substantial period with submission of charge-sheet, the
petitioner-Gopal Kumar Shaw @ Gopal Shaw may
kindly be granted bail.
4.1. On the other hand, Mr. Jagabandhu Sahu,
learned counsel for the petitioners in BLAPL No.2762 of
2025 submits that all the allegations are directed
against Chittaranjan Nanda, but the present petitioner
is not the Chittaranjan Nanda and he is Matru Prasad
Sethy and there is no link between Chittaranjan Nanda
and Matru Prasad Sethy and, therefore, the petitioner
having already detained in custody for substantial
period may kindly be granted bail.
4.2. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, however, by referring to the materials
placed on record submits that not only Chittaranjan
Nanda is Matru Prasad Sethy, but also he is the
principal accused, who has cheated the informant and
others for crores of rupees with active assistance of co-
accused. Mr. Mohanty also submits that the petitioner-
Matru Prasad Sethy is also having two criminal
antecedents of similar nature outside the State and,
therefore, the petitioner should not be enlarged on bail.
5. After having considered the rival
submissions upon perusal of record, there appears
substantial allegation against the petitioner-
Chittaranjan Nanda for duping the informant for more
than Rs.85 Lakhs and he is also subsequently alleged to
have cheated the informant for an additional amount of
Rs.45 Lakhs. The criminal antecedent of the petitioner-
Matru Prasad Sethy has never been denied or disputed.
In the context of considering the bail to the applicant,
the Court cannot close its eyes to the criminal
antecedent of such applicant in view of the following
observation in Ash Mohammad Vrs. Shiv Raj Singh
@ Lalla babu and Anr; (2012) 9 SCC 446 wherein,
while cancelling the bail granted bail to respondent-
accused therein, the Apex Court in paragraph-30 has
inter alia observed as under:-
"30.We may usefully state that when the
citizens are scared to lead a peaceful life and
this kind of offences usher in an impediment in
establishment of orderly society, the duty of
the court becomes more pronounced and the
burden is heavy. There should have been
proper analysis of the criminal antecedents.
Needless to say, imposition of conditions is
subsequent to the order admitting an accused
to bail. The question should be posed whether
the accused deserves to be enlarged on bail or
not and only thereafter issue of imposing
conditions would arise. We do not deny for a
moment that period of custody is a relevant
factor but simultaneously the totality of
circumstances and the criminal antecedents are
also to be weighed. They are to be weighed in
the scale of collective cry and desire. The
societal concern has to be kept in view in
juxtaposition of individual liberty. Regard being
had to the said parameter we are inclined to
think that the social concern in the case at
hand deserves to be given priority over lifting
the restriction of liberty of the accused."
5.1. In Azwar Vrs. Waseen; 2024 10 SCC 768, the
Apex Court in Paragraph 26 has held as under:-
"26.while considering as to whether, bail ought
to be granted in a matter involving a serious
criminal offence, the Court must consider
relevant factors like the nature of accusations
made against the accused, the manner in which
crime to have been committed, the gravity of the
offence, the role attributed to the accused, the
criminal antecedents of the accused, the
probability of tempering of the witnesses and
repeating the offence, if the accused are released
on bail, the likelihood of the accused being
unavailable in the event bail is granted, the
possibility of obstructing the proceedings and
evading the Court of justice and the overall
desirability of releasing the accused on bail."
6. On the other hand, there is no specific allegation
against the petitioner-Gopal Kumar Shaw @ Gopal
Shaw for directly cheating anyone and his role is limited
to entering into conspiracy with co-accused
Chittaranjan Nanda. It is also not disputed that after
due investigation, charge-sheet has already been
submitted in this case. In such view of the matter and
after having considered the rival submissions and
taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the
offences as alleged against the petitioners vis-à-vis the
accusation sought to be brought against them and
regard being had to the pre trial detention of the
petitioner-Gopal Kumar Shaw @ Gopal Shaw in custody
with submission of charge-sheet in the meantime and
finding prima facie allegation against the petitioner-
Matru Prasad Sethy, this Court while not being inclined
to grant bail to the petitioner-Matru Prasad Sethy @
Nanda @ Sethi in BLAPL No.2762 of 2025, however,
considers it proper to admit the petitioner-Gopal Kumar
Shaw @ Gopal Shaw in BLAPL No.1920 of 2025 to bail.
7. Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner-
Matru Prasad Sethy @ Nanda @ Sethi in BLAPL
No.2762 of 2025 stands rejected, whereas the prayer
for bail of petitioner-Gopal Kumar Shaw @ Gopal Shaw
in BLAPL No.1920 of 2025 stands allowed. Accordingly,
the petitioner Gopal Kumar Shaw @ Gopal Shaw is
allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bonds of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) 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 any
offence while on bail,
(ii) the petitioner in the course of trial shall
attend the trial Court on each date of
posting without fail unless his attendance is
dispensed with. In case the Petitioner
fails without sufficient cause to appear
in the Court in accordance with the
terms of the bail, the learned trial
Court may proceed against the
Petitioner for offence U/S.269 of BNS,
2023 in accordance with law,
(iii) the petitioner shall not leave the
territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court
without prior permission till disposal of the
case by intimating his present address of
stay to the concerned Court,
(iv) the petitioner shall report attendance
before the jurisdictional Police Station once
in a fortnight preferably on a Sunday in
each month in between 10 A.M. to 12 Noon
for six(06) months from the actual date of
release from the custody.
The I.I.C. of Jurisdictional Police Station
shall not detain the petitioner unnecessarily after
recording his attendance beyond the time as stipulated.
8. Accordingly, the BLAPL Nos.2762 & 1920 of
2025 stands disposed of.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Digitally Signed Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 10th day of November, 2025/Subhasmita
Designation: Sr. Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 13-Nov-2025 15:08:34
