Sambit Ray vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite Party
2025 Latest Caselaw 9443 Ori

Orissa High Court

Sambit Ray vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite Party on 28 October, 2025

Author: G. Satapathy

Bench: G. Satapathy

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
              BLAPL No.6032 of 2025

   (In the matter of application under Section 483 of the
   BNSS).

   Sambit Ray                           ...      Petitioner
                          -versus-
   State of Odisha                      ... Opposite Party

   For Petitioner           : Mr. D.P. Nanda, Sr. Advocate
                              along with Mr. B.B.
                              Choudhury, Advocate


   For Opposite Party       : Mr. T.K. Acharya, Addl. PP,
                              Mr. D. Nayak, Sr. Advocate
                              along with Ms. B. Mishra,
                              Advocate (informant)

       CORAM:
                   JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

                DATE OF HEARING :23.10.2025
                DATE OF JUDGMENT:28.10.2025


G. Satapathy, J.

1. This is an application U/S.483 of BNSS by

the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with

Markatnagar P.S. Case No.97 of 2025

corresponding to G.R. Case No.512 of 2025 pending

in the Court of learned J.M.F.C.-I (Cog.Taking),

Cuttack, for commission of offences punishable

U/Ss. 318(4)/319(2)/336(3)/354/115(2)/127(2)/

351(3)/308(5)/ 308(7) of BNS.

2. The present case arises out of an FIR

lodged by one Vijay Khandelwal alleging therein

that he came in contact with the petitioner during a

spiritual gathering in the year 2022 at his residence

and taking advantage of the informant's religious

inclination and emotional vulnerability, the

petitioner misrepresenting himself to be a son of

one IAS Officer, fraudulently projected himself as a

person endowed with spiritual powers and

accordingly, deceitfully induced the informant with

false representation and gaining emotional control

and trust of the informant and exploiting his

influence, the petitioner gradually intruded into the

informant's business activity and personal affairs

and in the process, the petitioner managed to

transfer the land in his favour through a false gift

deed and also obtained an adoption deed by forging

the signatures of the informant and his wife, and

the petitioner had also taken a sum of Rs.60 to 70

Lakhs through bank accounts from the informant

for buying a land in UP and later on took Rs.1Crore

through bank and made fixed deposit without any

knowledge of the informant. It is also alleged by

the informant that the petitioner was always

travelling in his(informant's) vehicles and

subsequently, induced the informant to purchase

vehicles and accordingly, the informant purchased

vehicles namely, one Hyundai Exeter bearing Regd.

No. OD-02-CT-4067 & another Toyota Fortunner

bearing Regd. No.OD-05-BE-1188. The informant,

however, could know from his daughters that the

petitioner induced him to part a sum to the tune of

approximately Rs.3 to 4 Crores on the pretext of

him being a God man. On this background, the

informant has lodged an FIR against the petitioner,

who was taken into custody on 25.05.2025 and

upon completion of investigation, charge sheet has

been placed in this case for commission of offence

punishable U/Ss.318(4)/ 319(2)/ 336(3)/ 354/

115(2)/127(2)/351(3)/308(5)/308(7) of BNS.

Being unsuccessful in securing his liberty before the

learned trial Court and the learned Sessions Court,

the petitioner is before this Court in this present

bail application.

3. Heard, Mr. Durga Prasad Nanda, learned

Senior Counsel, who is being assisted by Mr.

Bibhuti Bhusan Choudhury, learned counsel for the

petitioner; Mr. T.K. Acharya, learned Addl. PP and

Mr. Dharanidhar Nayak, learned Senior Counsel,

who is being assisted by Ms. Bini Mishra, learned

counsel for the informant in the matter and perused

the record. In addition to their oral arguments, the

parties have filed their written notes of submission.

4. The rival submissions made by the

parties make it very clear that the petitioner seeks

for his liberty on the ground that the dispute

between him and the informant being

predominantly civil in nature, and his detention in

custody, but the learned counsels for the informant

and the State opposes the prayer for bail of the

petitioner for his involvement in financial fraud and

his criminal antecedents. This Court, before delving

upon the rival contentions, needs to state here that

bail deals with the two conflicting interest of

personal liberty and societal interest, which arises

out of the interest of the aggrieved party-cum-

informant in a criminal case and bail means the

conditional liberty, however, it is being confused by

many persons to be letting the accused of the

criminal charge which is not the correct proposition

of law, since bail is predominantly a transfer of

custody of the accused from law to the

surety/sureties. The allegation leveled in this case

is really significant not only for the nature of

allegation, but also for the background of

circumstances under which the allegation has been

made. It is, however, claimed by the informant that

the petitioner has cheated him for around

Rs.2.76Crores through various transactions and in

business land deals, but the FIR discloses about the

petitioner obtaining a piece of land of the informant

through a forged gift deed and there is also

mention about the petitioner obtaining a deed of

acknowledgement of adoption. In the course of

argument, a specific query was made to the learned

counsel for the informant with regard to filing of

civil suit by the informant and his wife, since it was

claimed by the petitioner that the informant has

also filed a civil suit to declare the deed of

acknowledgement of adoption as invalid and void

and the counsel for the informant has in the course

of argument acknowledges about the informant

filing civil suit against the petitioner for such relief.

5. One of the important aspect of the

argument as advanced for the petitioner is that he

claims that the informant and his wife had in fact

adopted him way back in the year 1988 and to

confirm such adoption, they had executed a deed of

acknowledgment of adoption in the year 2023,

which was stated to be registered on 29.08.2023.

The petitioner has of course filed a copy of the

plaint so also the copy of the registered deed of

acknowledgment of adoption, but detailed analysis

of evidence and meticulous examination of

documents in a bail proceeding should not be

undertaken. Be that as it may, the informant

although has instituted the suit prior to lodging of

FIR, but he has neither stated such fact in the

averment of the FIR, nor has stated before the

Police in his statement with regard to institution of

suit. The materials placed on record in fact

unambiguously discloses about the prior

acquaintance of the petitioner with the informant

and it is claimed by the informant that he came in

contact with the petitioner in the year 2022, but the

allegation leveled against the petitioner in the FIR

and the investigation done in this case reveals

about allegation of cheating of the informant by the

petitioner through business establishment of the

informant and gaining the confidence of the

informant and his wife by spiritually influencing

them.

6. The written notes of argument of the

learned counsel for the State reveals that the

investigation has already been completed and gold

and diamonds ornaments weighing 1.875Kgs, 10

costly wrist watches, one laptop, one Apple iPhone,

cash of Rs.25,000/- and documents relating to sale

deeds, gift deeds, advance booking of 3 CDA plots

worth Rs.27Lakhs have been allegedly recovered

and seized from the petitioner. Further, the gift

deeds and deed of acknowledgement of adoption

which have been challenged in civil suit, are subject

matter of the civil suit, but the petitioner is in

custody since 24.05.2025. The bail application of

the petitioner was also opposed to by the learned

counsel for the State and the learned counsel for

the informant for the criminal antecedents of the

petitioner, but the petitioner although is having

some criminal antecedents, out of which it is

claimed by the petitioner that one case in Cuttack

Mahila P.S. Case No.02 of 2018 has already been

quashed by this Court in CRLMC No. 1048 of 2023.

True it is that the petitioner is found to be involved

in two to three other cases, but looking at the

allegation against the petitioner in this case and the

same having investigated into with culmination of

investigation in the meantime, it would be improper

to curtail the liberty of the petitioner in this case,

more particularly in the background of allegation of

pendency of civil proceeding between the petitioner

and the informant prior to the criminal case.

7. Law is well settled that the object of bail

is to secure attendance of the accused at the trial,

but detention before conviction is punitive and

grant of bail should be the norm, but detention in

jail should be an exception. Whatever may be the

allegation, it is only the allegation and the same is

subject to proof in the trial and there is in fact no

custodial interrogation is required in this case in

view of the submission of charge sheet in the

meantime. Further, deprivation of liberty must be

considered as punishment, unless it is required to

ensure that accused person would stand his trial

when called upon and the Court must be conscious

that the punishment begins after conviction and

every man is presumed to be innocent until proven

guilty at the trial. The underlying object of bail is

that it is neither punitive nor preventive and any

imprisonment before conviction has a substantial

punitive content.

8. One of the important test for grant of bail

is the tripod/triple test which includes flight risk,

influencing witness and tampering evidence, but in

this case, charge sheet having already been

submitted, there is hardly any scope for influencing

the witnesses, however, with regard to flight risk,

appropriate conditions can be imposed by asking

the petitioner to surrender his passport and

thereby, such apprehension can be curbed and

since the evidence predominantly collected in this

case being based on documentary evidence, the

petitioner would be hardly in a position to tamper

such document and thereby, there is little

apprehension of tampering with the evidence by

the petitioner. The learned counsel for the State of

course has cited the decisions in Nimagada

Prasad Vrs. CBI; (2013) 7 SCC 466 and CBI

Vrs. Ramendu; (2021) 9 SCC 743, however, no

such case law was found in the citation (2021) 9

SCC 743, but even if the principle that has been

settled in Nimagada Prasad(supra) is

considered, it is found distinguishable from the

facts of the present case, since the dispute in the

relied on case revolves around the money of

general public, but the present case is in fact a

dispute between two individual for financial and

land transactions giving rise to the criminal case.

Further, the allegation and the defence plea would

be adjudicated in the trial, but at this stage, there

is no scope for dealing with the rival pleas in

deciding the bail application. The learned Addl. PP

in his written notes of argument, has also relied

upon the decision in P.Chidambaram vrs.

Directorate of Enforcement; (2019) 9 SCC 24

to contend that when there are multiple cases

showing similar conduct, it reveals a pattern and

propensity of the accused, which is material factor

while considering the prayer for bail, but such a

principle has never been discussed in the case law

and, therefore, such contention of the learned Add.

PP merits no consideration.

9. In view of the discussions made

hereinabove and taking into account the nature and

gravity of the offences as alleged against the

petitioner vis-à-vis the accusations sought to be

brought against him and regard being had to the

materials placed on record and the offences being

triable by Magistrate and taking into account the

law laid down by the Apex Court in Satender

Kumar Antil Vrs. Central Bureau of

Investigation; (2022) 10 SCC 51 and granting of

bail being purely for securing the liberty of the

petitioner pending adjudication of the criminal trial,

this Court without expressing any opinion of merit,

admits the petitioner to bail, but subject to certain

conditions.

10. Hence, the bail application of the

petitioner stands allowed and the petitioner is

allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bonds of

Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) only 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 and the petitioner shall co-operate with the further investigation, if any by appearing before the IO as and when required,

(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 country without prior permission of the learned trial Court till disposal of the case,

(iv) the Petitioner shall inform the Court as well as the Investigating Agency as to his place of residence during the trial by providing his mobile number(s), residential address, e-mail, if any, and other documents in support

of proof of his residence. The Petitioner shall not change his address of residence without intimating to the Court and Investigating Agency,

(v) In case the Petitioner misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence, proclamation U/S.84 of BNSS, 2023 is issued and the Petitioner fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the learned trial Court is at liberty to initiate proceeding against him for offence U/S.209 of BNS, 2023 in accordance with law.

(vi) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any (if not already surrendered), and in case, he is not a holder of the same, he shall swear an affidavit to that effect. If he has already surrendered his pass-port before the learned Court, that fact should also be supported by an affidavit.

(vii) This Court reserves liberty to the informant/State to make an appropriate application for modification/recalling the order passed by this Court, if for any reason, the petitioner violates any of the conditions imposed by this Court.

It is clarified that the Court in seisin of the

case will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the

petitioner 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.

11. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.

(G. Satapathy) Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 28th day of October, 2025/S.Sasmal

Location: High Court of Orissa