Ravi Raj vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite Party
2025 Latest Caselaw 8965 Ori

Orissa High Court

Ravi Raj vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite Party on 13 October, 2025

Author: G. Satapathy

Bench: G. Satapathy

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
  BLAPL NOs.5714, 6232, 6303, 6347, 6350 & 7091 of 2025
   (In the matter of applications under Section 483 of
   BNSS, 2023).
  Ravi Raj                         ...       Petitioners
  (In BLAPL No.5714 of 2025)
  Sritam Kumar Meher
  (In BLAPL No.6232 of 2025)
  Anil Nayak @ Naik
  (In BLAPL No. 6303 of 2025)
  Bishwamber Kharsel @
  Bishwambhar Kharsal
  (In BLAPL No. 6347 of 2025)
  Bijay Kumar Meher
  (In BLAPL No. 6350 of 2025)
  Rajesh Tandi & Another
  (In BLAPL No. 7091 of 2025)

                                  Mr. Y.Das, Sr. Advocate
      along with Mr.M.Mukul & Mr. N.C.Mohanty, Advocate
                             (in BLAPL No. 5714 of 2025)
           Ms.M.Mohapatra along with Mr.A.Das, Advocate
        (In BLAPL Nos. 6232, 6303, 6347, 6350 & 7091 of
                                                    2025)
                          -versus-
  State of Odisha                      ...    Opposite Party

                                     Mr. A.Pradhan, Addl. PP

       CORAM:
                   JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

                   DATE OF HEARING :13.10.2025
                   DATE OF JUDGMENT:13.10.2025
G. Satapathy, J.

1. These are the bail applications U/S.483 of

BNSS by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection

with Cyber Crime & Economic offences UPD PS Case

No. 0032 of 2025 corresponding to GR Case No.402 of

2025 pending in the file of learned JMFC-I(Cog.Taking),

Cuttack, for commission of offences punishable

U/Ss.318(4)/319(2)/336(4)/338/340(2)/3(5) of BNS

read with Sec. 66(C)/66(D) of IT Act.

2. It appears from the record that one Samir

Pratap Harichandan lodged an FIR before the ACP,

Cyber Police Station, Cuttack alleging therein that he

came in contact with one trading company namely,

M/S.Spreadex Global Ltd. in the month of February,

2025 through Telegram App with user name

Good_Priya Bajaj having mobile No.+917297864486

and thereafter, he went on depositing Rs.78 Lakhs in a

phase wise manner in the said company and as per the

statement of the said company, his investment grew up

to $ 2,56,981 USD, which is equivalent to INR Rs.2

Crores, but when he wanted to withdraw the amount,

the said company asked him to deposit INR

Rs.29,16,130/- towards foreign exchange value and

income tax etc., however, when he asked the company

to deduct the same from the amount payable to him,

the company refused and he, thereby, smelled the

financial fraud. In the FIR, the informant has further

prayed for recovery of his hard earned money.

Pursuant to the FIR, a criminal case was registered

against unknown persons and the matter was

investigated into, but finding the involvement of the

petitioners in the course of investigation, they were

taken into custody and on completion of investigation,

charge-sheet has been submitted against the

petitioners for commission of offence punishable U/Ss.

318(4)/319(2)/336(4)/338/340(2)/61(2)/3(5) of the

BNS r/w Sec.66C/ 66D of the IT Act.

3. Heard, Mr. Y. Das, learned Senior Counsel,

who is being assisted by Mr.M.Mukul & Mr. N.C.

Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL

No. 5714 of 2025; Ms.M.Mohapatra appearing along

with Mr.A.Das, learned counsel for the petitioners in

BLAPL Nos. 6232, 6303, 6347,6350 & 7091 of 2025

and Mr. A.Pradhan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

in these matters and perused the record.

3.1. It is, however, submitted for the petitioners

that they are neither having any transaction with the

informant nor were having any link with the company

M/S.Spreadex Global Ltd., but the account

No.8005657281 belongs to petitioner Deepak

Dharua(BLAPL No. 7091 of 2025), but Rs.2 Lakhs was

transferred to the said account as per the charge-sheet,

however, Rs.1.5 Lakhs is still available in the said

account, but the petitioners are in custody since the

month of May and June, 2025 and in the meantime,

charge-sheet has already been submitted. It is also

submitted for the petitioners that the name of none of

the petitioners finds place in the FIR nor any specific

allegation is raised out against any of the petitioners,

but the informant being an educated person has

invested the money in the company, which has no link

with the petitioners, however, such investment is

subject to market risk like mutual fund and even if for

the sake of argument, if the investment of the

informant has not been returned, he should have

approached the financial authority like "SEBI". Further,

it is also argued for the petitioners that the allegation

leveled against the petitioners is based on documentary

evidence and, thereby, the petitioners having no scope

to tamper with the prosecution evidence/materials,

they may kindly be granted bail. In response to the

affidavit filed by the IO with regard to involvement of

the petitioners in FIR No.184 of 2025 in Bruhan,

Mumbai, Cyber Police Thane and FIR No.151 of 2025 in

the Special Cell Police Station, Dwaraka Delhi, it is

submitted that neither the name of the petitioners finds

place in the said FIRs nor have they any link in the said

cases nor the account No.8005657281 belong to them

and, therefore, the petitioners having not been found

involved in this case and detained in custody for more

than five months may kindly be granted bail.

3.2. In opposing the prayer for bail of the

petitioners, Mr. A.Pradhan, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor has, however, strongly submitted that not

only the petitioners have defrauded the complainant for

a sum of Rs.78 Lakhs, but also they are squarely

involved in other cases as revealed from the affidavit of

the IO filed in this case, which reasonably link the

petitioners in two cases in Mumbai and Delhi, which are

prima facie being found from the five complaints

registered against account No.8005657281, which was

used by all the petitioners and, therefore, the release of

the petitioners would definitely impede the process of

further investigation in this case. On the aforesaid

submission, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has

prayed to reject the bail applications of the petitioners.

4. After having considered the rival

submissions upon perusal of record, it appears that the

petitioners have been apprehended in connection with

this case for commission of cyber fraud, but the

informant has never named the petitioners in his FIR,

rather the FIR allegations goes to show that the

informant had come in contact with M/S. Spreadex

Global Ltd. through social media platform from one

Priya Bajaj as a broker and accordingly, he had

invested the money. The petitioners are in custody for

some time and in the meantime, charge-sheet has

already been submitted. Whatever may be the

allegation against the petitioners, but it is only the

allegation at this stage, but the same is subject to trial.

True it is that the State opposes the bail applications of

the petitioners for the involvement of Account

No.8005657281 in five complaints as per portal of the

Ministry of Home Affairs, but only two FIRs have been

culminated out of such complaints, however, the State

has produced the copy of FIRs in which the name of

none of the petitioners does figure out. Besides, no

material has been produced by the State to show the

involvement of the petitioners in the complaints made

against Account No.8005657281. The allegation against

the petitioners is totally based on documentary

evidence, which can be examined in the trial, but there

is hardly any scope for the petitioners to tamper with

such documents. Besides, bail should not be confused

as acquittal of the accused persons since it is a mode of

temporary release from custody by taking reasonable

amount of bail pending adjudication of the dispute in

the trial. Denial of bail only to keep the accused

persons in confinement amounts to deprivation of

personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India. It is also not in dispute that "bail

is the rule, but jail is the exception" since an accused is

presumed to be innocent until proven guilty at the trial.

5. In the aforesaid backdrop, when the

allegation against the petitioners is considered on the

face of materials placed on record together with their

pre trial detention and balancing the same in the scale

of golden principle of bail jurisprudence, it would not be

improper to grant bail to the petitioners, more

particularly when the investigation in respect of the

petitioners has already been completed and the

culpability of the petitioners can be adjudicated in the

trial, which is not going to commence in near future.

6. Hence, the bail applications of the

petitioners stand allowed and the petitioners are

allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bonds of

Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) each with two

solvent sureties 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 petitioners shall not commit any offence while on bail and the petitioners shall co-operate with the further investigation, if any by appearing before the IO as and when required,

(ii) the petitioners in the course of trial shall attend the trial Court on each date of posting without fail unless their attendance is dispensed with. In case the Petitioners fail without sufficient cause to appear in the Court in accordance with the terms of the bail, the learned trial Court may proceed against the Petitioners for offence U/S.269 of BNS, 2023 in accordance with law,

(iii) the petitioners shall not leave the country without prior permission of the learned trial Court till disposal of the case,

(iv) the Petitioners shall inform the Court as well as the Investigating Agency as to their place of residence during the trial by providing their mobile number(s), residential address, e-mail, if any, and other documents in support of proof of their residence. The Petitioners shall not change their address of residence without intimating to the Court and Investigating Agency,

(v) In case the Petitioners misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure their presence, proclamation U/S.84 of BNSS, 2023 is issued and the Petitioners fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed

in such proclamation, then, the learned trial Court would be at liberty to initiate proceeding against them for offence U/S.209 of BNS, 2023 in accordance with law.

(vi) The petitioners shall surrender their passport, if any (if not already surrendered), and in case, they are not a holder of the same, they shall swear an affidavit to that effect. If their passport has already been seized or they have already surrendered their pass-port before the learned trial Court that fact should also be supported by an affidavit.

It is clarified that the Court in seisin of the

case would be at liberty to cancel the bail of the

petitioners without further reference to this Court, if

any of the above conditions are violated or a case for

cancellation of bail is otherwise made out. In the wake

of aforesaid, the subsequent involvement of the

petitioners in future for similar/grave offences on prima

facie accusations may be treated as a ground for

cancellation of bail in this case.

7. Accordingly, all the BLAPLs referred to above

Signed by: KISHORE KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication (G. Satapathy) Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 14-Oct-2025 14:05:42 Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 13th day of October, 2025/Kishore