Orissa High Court
Nihar Ranjan Singh vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 9 September, 2025
Author: V. Narasingh
Bench: V. Narasingh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ABLAPL No. 5953 of 2025
Nihar Ranjan Singh .... Petitioner
Mr. S.N. Das, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. S. Panigrahi, ASC
Mr. A. Mohanty, Sr. Adv.(Informant)
along with Mr. P. Dash, Advocate
CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
DATE OF HEARING :03.09.2025
DATE OF ORDER :09.09.2025
V. Narasingh, J.
1. Heard Mr. Das, learned counsel for the
Petitioner, Mr. Panigrahi, learned counsel for the State
and Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the
Informant.
2. The Petitioner is seeking pre-arrest bail in
connection with G.R Case No.297 of 2025 pending in
the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Rourkela, arising out
Brahmanitaranga P.S. Case No.94 of 2025 for
commission of offences punishable under Sections
306/316(2)/336(2)/336(3)/339/314 of BNS.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
Petitioner that the Petitioner who had tendered his
resignation from the post of General Manager of Seeta
Auto Care LLP, an authorized dealer of KIA Motors India
Ltd., Rourkela-Informant has been falsely implicated for
commission of the aforesaid offences.
It is further submitted with vehemence that the
Petitioner had tendered his resignation on 28.06.2024.
Since the occurrence of the offence is for the period
from 08.12.2024 to 25.02.2025, admittedly beyond the
service period of the Petitioner, ex facie it is a case of
false implication.
It is stated taking into account the nature of
allegations, which are based on documentary evidence
that the Petitioner is entitled to be protected by pre-
arrest bail.
It is the further submission of the learned
counsel that the Petitioner was lured into making the
payment to absolve himself, and accordingly, he paid a
sum of Rs. 6 lakhs to one Utkarsh Jhunjhunwala,
partner of the Informant- Seeta Autocare LLP.
It is submitted with vehemence that even if the
entire allegations of the prosecutions are accepted at
their face value, the basic ingredients of the offence
qua the Petitioner are not established and keeping in
view the punishment prescribed, the Petitioner be
protected by pre-arrest bail so that he can be saved
from undue harassment because of the clout of the
overzealous Informant.
4. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Panigrahi and
learned Senior Advocate, Mr. Mohanty for the
Informant oppose such prayer.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
State that during the ongoing investigation it has come
to fore that Nihar Ranjan Singh (Ex-General Manager),
Anirudh Ghosh (Ex-Sales Manager), Prakash Ranjan
Jena (Ex-Old car Sales Manager), Amit Kumar (Ex-
Senior Accountant) and five others were managing the
sale/receipt of the old and new cars of the Informant.
During the tenure from 2021 to 2024, a fraud to the
tune of Rs.4 Crores has been committed by the above
accused persons by manipulating the Bank statement of
the Seeta Auto Care LLP bearing account number
920020069373182. It is also brought to the notice of
this Court that Seeta Autocare LLP has two agencies,
namely, KIA Motors and Mahindra. It is submitted that
the investigation is at a crucial stage. Hence, protecting
the Petitioner by pre-arrest bail would derail the
ongoing investigation.
Learned Senior Advocate for the Informant
submitted that since it is an economic offence and from
the very inception there was an intention to commit
fraud, the Petitioner ought not to be protected by pre-
arrest bail.
5. On the basis of the recitals in the case diary, it
is submitted by the learned Counsel for the State that
from the account of the co-accused, there is a money
trail to the tune of Rs. 1,03,47,957/- (Rupees One
Crore Three Lakhs Forty-Seven Thousand Nine Hundred
Fifty-Seven) to the account of the Petitioner and his
wife, Ms. Nanis Singh.
An amount of Rs. 35,50,000/- was transferred
to the account of Rajesh Muni of Kalia Developers for
the purchase of land in the name of the wife of the
Petitioner, namely, Ms. Nanis Singh.
An amount of Rs. 3,52,001/- was transferred to
the account of one Ramesh Chandra Badaik for the
purchase of land in the name of the Petitioner.
Basing on the said recitals in the case diary, the
learned Counsel for the State submits that the
investigation into the financial fraud, as committed, is
at a nascent stage and, if at this juncture the Petitioner
is protected by way of pre-arrest bail, it will frustrate
the ongoing investigation.
Learned Senior Advocate for the Informant has
echoed such submission.
6. On a conspectus of the materials on record, this
Court is of the view that the dishonest intention of the
Accused Petitioner for manipulation is prima facie
established in the light of the money trail referred to
hereinabove and merits investigation unfettered by an
order of pre-arrest bail.
This Court is conscious of the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vrs.
Central Bureau of Investigation and another1,
wherein the Apex Court has clarified that the directions
qua post arrest bail shall apply in equal measure to
cases of anticipatory bail and the observation which is
germane is extracted hereunder;
"..........we would like to clarify that what we
have enunciated qua bail would equally
apply to anticipatory bail cases.
Anticipatory bail after all is one of the
species of a bail".
In the given factual matrix in the case at hand,
this Court is not persuaded to hold that the Petitioner is
to be granted protection of pre-arrest bail.
7. Accordingly, ABLAPL being devoid of merit
stands rejected. Interim order stands vacated.
8. It shall be open for the Petitioner to surrender
and move for bail which shall be considered on its own
merit as expeditiously as possible. Case diary shall be
made available to the concerned Court(s) to facilitate
such disposal.
Ground of parity, if any, may be considered by
the learned Court(s) below.
9. It is needless to state that the observations
made hereinabove are only for the purpose of
consideration of the Petitioner's prayer for pre-arrest
bail and the same ought not to be considered as this
2023 SCC Online SC 452
Court expressing any opinion regarding complicity of
the Petitioner which has to be probed independently.
(V. NARASINGH)
Judge
PKS
Signed by: PRADEEP KUMAR SWAIN
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 09-Sep-2025 19:46:22
