Orissa High Court
Aditya Kumar Mohapatra vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 27 October, 2025
Author: V. Narasingh
Bench: V. Narasingh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ABLAPL No. 12877 of 2024
Aditya Kumar Mohapatra .... Petitioner
Mr. A.K. Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. C.R. Swain, AGA
Mr. A. Baral, Adv. (Informant)
CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
ORDER
Order No. 27.10.2025
07. 1. Memo filed by the Mr. A.K. Mohanty learned
counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. A.K. Subudhi,
learned counsel on record for the Petitioner is taken
on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner,
learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for
the Informant.
3. The Petitioner is seeking pre-arrest bail in
connection with G.R. Case No.1389 of 2024 pending
on the file of learned J.M.F.C.-II, Cuttack, arising out
of Tangi (Cuttack) Rural P.S. Case No.269 of 2024 for
commission of offences punishable under Sections
317(2)/318(4)/319(2)/320/322/323/324(5)/326(c)/
337/338/339/340/351(3)/3(5) of BNS.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
Petitioner that primarily the allegations are based on
documentary evidence and in the meanwhile a civil
suit inter se between the parties, who are related,
have been instituted. Hence, custodial interrogation
of the Petitioner is not warranted.
5. Learned counsel for the State as well as
Informant opposes the prayer for pre-arrest bail.
6. The allegation against the present Petitioner
that he along with his wife (Ranjeeta Kumari
Mohanty) have entered into a criminal conspiracy and
executed a forged and fabricated registered power of
attorney and on the basis of the same a lease was
executed in favour of one M/s.Ashirvad Pipes Pvt.
Limited and on the strength of which loan to the tune
of Rs.5,20,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crore Twenty Lakhs
only) was availed from the Kotak Mahindra Bank
Limited.
7. And, referring to the same both the learned
counsel for the State as well as informant submits
that no leniency ought to be shown to the Petitioner.
8. Considering the nature of the allegation and
the manner in which the execution of the registered
power of attorney came to light which has been acted
upon, this Court is persuaded to hold that from very
inception the Petitioner had the mens-rea to cheat.
Hence, prima facie the ingredients of the offence are
well made out and in the process public money to the
tune of Rs.5,20,00,000/- also got entangled.
9. Considering the same and keeping in view the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Serious
Fraud Investigation Officer vs. Aditya Sarda
reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 764, this Court is
not inclined to entertain this application for pre-arrest
bail. However, in the event the Petitioner surrender
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.
10. It is needles to state that the observations
made herein are only for the purpose of considering
the present pre-arrest bail application and that ought
not to be construed as this Court expressing any view
regarding the complicity of the Petitioner which has to
be decided in an independent manner.
11. Accordingly, the ABLAPL stands disposed of.
12. In view of the disposal of the ABLAPL, all the
pending I.As. stand disposed of.
(V. NARASINGH)
Judge
Santoshi
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
