Sambit Panda vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite Party
2025 Latest Caselaw 7765 Ori

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 7765 Ori
Judgement Date : 2 September, 2025

Orissa High Court

Sambit Panda vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite Party on 2 September, 2025

Author: G. Satapathy

Bench: G. Satapathy

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                BLAPL No.6770 of 2025

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

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

   For Petitioner             :        Mr. Y. Das, Sr. Advocate
                                  along with Mr. N.C. Mohanty,
                                                       Advocate

   For Opposite Party         :     Mr. M.K. Mohanty, Addl. PP
                                    Mr. S.S. Bhuyan, Advocate
                                                  (informant)


  CORAM:
                    JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

DATE OF HEARING & DATE OF JUDGMENT:02.09.2025 (ORAL)


G. Satapathy, J.

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

the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with

Infocity P.S. Case No.440 of 2024 corresponding to 1

C.C. Case No.6812 of 2024 (C.T. Case No.1608 of

2024) pending in the file of learned J.M.F.C.-II (Cog.

Taking), Bhubaneswar, for commission of offences

punishable U/Ss.316(2)/ 324(5)/ 318(4)/ 338/

336(3)/340(2)/351(2) of BNS, on main the allegation

of cheating the informant by not providing as agreed

the luxury cars by taking a sum of Rs.1,08,50,000/-.

2. In the course of hearing, Mr. Yasobant Das,

learned Senior Counsel, who is being assisted by Mr.

Nirmal Chandra Mohanty, learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that although it is alleged that the

petitioner has received Rs.1,08,50,000/- to supply

cars, but since the petitioner was not the real supplier

of luxury cars, he transferred the money to one

Usharani Barik to supply the same, but unfortunately

luxury cars could not be supplied to the informant

and even if the materials on record are taken into

consideration, it would only be a case of breach of

contract which does not give rise to any criminal

action/liabilities, but notwithstanding to such fact, the

complainant has managed to initiate a criminal case

by filing a complaint and sending it to the Police for

registration. It is further submitted that the petitioner

is in custody since 09.06.2025 and charge sheet has

already been submitted in this case, but fact remains

that all the offences alleged against the petitioner are

not punishable with death or imprisonment for life,

rather the same is triable by Magistrate First Class

and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in

Satender Kumar Antil Vrs. Central Bureau of

Investigation; (2022) 10 SCC 51, the petitioner

may kindly be granted bail.

2.1. In opposing the prayer for bail, Mr. Sourav

Suman Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for the

informant, however, strongly argues and submits that

not only the petitioner is involved in this case, but

also he is involved in another case and since the

petitioner has prima facie committed a financial

fraud, he should not be granted bail and the

informant is unaware of the fact as to whether the

petitioner has transferred the money to co-accused or

not, but in fact the petitioner has cheated the

informant by not supplying the car after receiving the

Rs.1,08,50,000/-. It is further submitted that

although there is a financial fraud committed by the

petitioner, but the informant is only concerned about

refund of his hard-earned money and in case the

petitioner delivers the amount, the informant would

not have any serious objection for grant of bail to the

petitioner.

2.2. In echoing the submission of the learned

counsel for the informant, Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned

Addl. PP submits slightly different by arguing that the

petitioner has transferred a sum of Rs.90,00,000/- to

the co-accused Usharani Barik, who is yet to be

apprehended and charge sheet has already been

submitted by keeping the investigation open for other

action and, therefore, at this stage granting bail

would allow the petitioner to interfere with the

investigation and witnesses and, therefore, the

petitioner may not kindly be granted bail.

3. After having considered the rival submissions

upon perusal of record, there appears some

allegations against the petitioner for receiving certain

amount to deliver some luxury cars, but it is

unearthed in the investigation that the petitioner has

allegedly transferred a sum of Rs.90,00,000/- to co-

accused namely Usharani Barik. Be that as it may,

criminal proceedings are never meant for realization

of money as held by Apex Court in Ramesh Kumar

Vrs. State of NCT of Delhi; (2023) 7 SCC 461. In

this case, as per the submissions advanced by the

parties, there appears oral agreement between the

petitioner and the informant for supply of car after

receiving the amount, but the petitioner has already

been detained in custody since 09.06.2025 and in the

meantime, charge sheet has already been submitted.

Further, the allegations which have been levelled

against the petitioner are subject to trial, but at best

right now it is only allegation and detaining a person

for indefinite period pending trial would not be in the

interest of justice or personal liberty of such person

as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of

India. The primary and paramount consideration in

granting bail is securing the possibility of attendance

of the accused at the trial, but there is no material on

record to suggest that the petitioner would abscond

in case of his enlargement on bail.

4. In such view of the matter and taking into

consideration the materials placed on record vis-à-vis

the accusations sought to be brought against him and

keeping in view the right of the accused to be

presumed innocent until proven guilty at the trial and

taking into account the law laid down by the Apex

Court in Satender Antil(Supra), this Court without

expressing any view on merits, admits the petitioner

to bail.

5. 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 threaten, coerce or influence any of the witnesses acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts before the learned trial Court.