Ranjeeta Kumari vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party
2025 Latest Caselaw 9573 Ori

Orissa High Court

Ranjeeta Kumari vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 30 October, 2025

Author: V. Narasingh

Bench: V. Narasingh

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                         ABLAPL No. 14821 of 2024

             Ranjeeta Kumari            ....         Petitioners
             Mohanty
                                  Mr. A. Mohanty, Sr. Advocate

                                  -versus-

             State of Odisha            ....     Opposite Party
                                             Mr. S. Panda, ASC
                                         Mr. A. Baral, Advocate
                                                    (Informant)


                         ABLAPL No. 14881 of 2024

             1. Salila Kumar Beura ....           Petitioners
             2. Khirod Kumar Das
                                Mr. A. Mohanty, Sr. Advocate

                                  -versus-

             State of Odisha            ....     Opposite Party
                                             Mr. S. Panda, ASC
                                         Mr. A. Baral, Advocate
                                                    (Informant)

                       CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

                                 ORDER

30.10.2025 Order No.

03. 1. Since both the ABLAPLs relate to the same FIR, on the consent of the parties, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

3. The Petitioners are seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with G.R. Case No.1389 of 2024 pending on the file of learned JMFC (II), Cuttack, arising out of Tangi P.S. Case No.269 of 2024 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 317(2)/ 318(4)/ 319(2)/ 320/ 322/ 323/ 324(8)/ 326(c)/ 337/ 338/ 339/ 340/ 351(3) of BNS, 2023.

4. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Mohanty for the Petitioners that even if the entire gamut of allegations so far as the Petitioner in ABLAPL No.14821 of 2024 is concerned, is taken at its face value, it is clear that she has been arrayed as an accused only because she is the wife of the principal accused. It is also submitted with vehemence that she has no role in the execution of the alleged forged power of attorney which is the genesis of the present allegation against her. And, is an offshoot of a compliant case.

It is further submitted that since the said Petitioner is a lady and working as a Doctor in Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation and taking into account the nature of allegations, her custodial interrogation is not warranted.

5. Learned counsel for the State as well as informant oppose the prayer for pre-arrest bail.

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Informant that the Petitioner in ABLAPL No.14821 of 2024, misusing her position as a Doctor in Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation gave a life certificate in an OPD prescription and actively connived with her husband to hatch the conspiracy in facilitating execution of the forged power of attorney. And, consequentially by virtue of such forged power of attorney mortgaging the property in question loan to the tune of Rs.5,20,00,000/- from the Kotak Mahindra Bank was obtained to the exclusion of the informant and her daughter. Hence, no leniency ought to be shown.

Learned counsel for the State also echoed such submission.

6-A. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that vide order dated 27.10.2025, this Court after detailed examination of the rival contentions have rejected the anticipatory bail application of the husband of the Petitioner (Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) in ABLAPL No.12877 of 2024.

6-B. It is pertinent to note that the complainants are mother and sister of the accused, namely, Aditya Kumar Mohapatra, the Petitioner in ABLAPL No.12877 of 2024.

6-C. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the Informant with vehemence that, taking into account the nature of allegations, there is no scope to segregate the role assigned to the Petitioner who is none other than the spouse of the Petitioner in ABLAPL No.12877 of 2024, whose anticipatory bail application has been rejected. As such, she ought not to be protected by pre-arrest bail and more so, since ex facie this is an economic offence.

7. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners in ABLAPL No.14881 of 2025 that they are the attesting witnesses. Hence, taking into account their limited roles, they may be protected by pre-arrest bail.

7-A. Learned counsel for the State as well as informant reiterate their submission in opposing their applications for pre-arrest bail.

8. It is brought to the notice of this Court that civil suit seeking cancellation of the power of attorney in question i.e CS No.348 of 2025, at the behest of the complainant as plaintiff and in which the said Aditya Kumar Mohapatra husband of the Petitioner in ABLAPL No.14821 of 2024 has been arrayed as one of the defendants is pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge Senior Division First Court, Cuttack.

9. Referring to the said Civil Litigation, learned Senior Counsel further submits that the very fact that

the Petitioner in ABLAPL No.14821 of 2024 has not been arrayed as a defendant, goes to fortify his submission that the said Petitioner is only being hounded because she is the wife of the principal accused.

Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the informant as well as state that taking into account the nature of allegation, merely because the Petitioner in ABLAPL No.14821 of 2024 has not been arrayed as a defendant, her complicity is no way diluted.

9-A. So far as the Petitioners in ABLAPL No.14881 of 2024 is concerned, admittedly the said Petitioners have not been named as defendant as well though they are the attesting witnesses.

Learned counsel for the State and informant submit that not being cited as defendants, does not absolve the said Petitioners who are admittedly attesting witnesses. And, as such they should not be ensconced by pre-arrest bail.

10. It is the further submission of both the learned counsel for the State as well as informant that since the investigation is continuing and is at a crucial stage, the release of the Petitioners by pre-arrest bail would derail the same. Hence, on the said count also the anticipatory bails do not merit consideration.

11. This Court finds force in the submission of the learned counsel for the informant that it is an economic offence and standard of scrutiny has to be distinctly different while considering the anticipatory bail applications qua the allegations of this nature.

12. It is apt to note that while rejecting the pre- arrest bail application of the co-accused, husband of the Petitioner in ABLAPL No.12877 of 2024, this Court had referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of 1Serious Fraud Investigation Officer vrs. Aditya Sarda.

13. At this stage, respectful reference can be made to the latest judgment of the Apex Court in the

case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vrs. Central Bureau of Investigation, defending the approach of Courts while considering anticipatory bail applications.

In the said case the Apex Court has restated the principle that anticipatory bail is a "specie" of the regular bail.

In this context the paragraph-11 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:-

"11................we would like to clarify that what we have enunciated qua bail would equally

2025 SCC OnLine SC 764

2023 SCC OnLine SC 452

apply to anticipatory bail cases. Anticipatory bail after all is one of the species of a bail."

13-A. So, the rival submissions made at the Bar have to be considered on the touchstone of the law laid down as above in the cases of Serious Fraud Investigation Officer (supra) and Satendra Kumar Antil (supra).

14. Considering the rival submissions, allegations and materials as reflected in the case diary on record delineated above, this Court is of the prima facie view that so far as the role ascribed to the Petitioner in ABLAPL No.14881 of 2024 is concerned, the same falls within the category of "more sinned against than sinning" (John Miller "All my sons").

Taking into account the nature of allegations and that the Petitioner in ABLAPL No.14821 of 2024 is a lady and the role ascribed, this Court directs that on surrendering within three weeks hence and moving for bail, the Petitioner in ABLAPL No.14821 of 2024 shall be released on bail by the learned Court in seisin on such terms as deemed just and proper.

15. On scrutiny of the nature of allegations, role ascribed to the Petitioners in ABLAPL No.14881 of 2024 and the punishment prescribed, this Court directs that on surrendering within three weeks hence and moving for bail, they shall be released on bail by

the learned Court in seisin on such terms as deemed just and proper.

16. It is needless to state that the Petitioners in both the ABLAPLs shall cooperate with the ongoing investigation.

17. It is needless to state that the observations made here are only for the purpose of considering the pre-arrest bail applications and ought not to be construed as this Court expressing any view regarding the complicity of the Petitioners which has to be adjudicated in an independent manner.

18. Accordingly, the ABLAPLs stand disposed of.

(V. NARASINGH) Judge

Jina

Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 02-Nov-2025 13:08:06