[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Jharana Sahoo vs State Of Orissa(Opid) ... Opposite ... on 9 April, 2026
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL NO.14008 of 2025
(In the matter of application under Section 483 of
BNSS, 2023).
Jharana Sahoo ... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Orissa(OPID) ... Opposite Party
For Petitioner : Ms. D. Mahapatra, Advocate
For Opposite Party : Mr. A.K.Nayak, Advocate for
OPID
Mr.Sk. Attibullah, Advocate
for the victim
CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:09.04.2026(ORAL)
G. Satapathy, J.
1. This is the bail application U/S.483 of the
BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with
EOW, CID CD, Bhubaneswar PS Case No.18 of 2025
corresponding to C.T. Case No.22 of 2025 pending in the
Court of learned Presiding Officer, Designated Court under
OPID Act, Cuttack, for offence punishable U/Ss.
406/420/467/468/471/120B of IPC r/w Sec. 4, 5 & 6 of
PCMCS(Banning) Act 1978 & Sec. 21(1)(2)(3)/23/25 of
BUDS Act.
2. The case against the petitioner arise out of
an FIR lodged by one Jayant Mishra by stating therein that
one Chandra Sekhar Sahoo, Managing Director of M/s.
Evoreach Ventures Pvt. Ltd. was known to him and the
said company has two Directors namely petitioner-Jharana
Sahoo and Kabita Rana and in the month of February,
2022, said Chandra Sekhar Sahoo convinced/allured him
to invest money in the lucrative scheme launched by his
company on the assurance of getting double return in 30
months with monthly return basis. Basing on such
representation, the informant initially invested Rs.5.5
lakhs on 08.03.2022, Rs.4.5 lakhs on 11.03.2022 in the
name of his wife Abhilasha Mishra and the informant
further invested Rs.2.9 lakhs on 13.05.2022 by
transferring the same to the account of the company
Evoreach Ventures Pvt Ltd. and Rs.1.92 lakhs in the
account of Director Kabita Rana as per request of the MD
and in the process, the informant had invested a total
amount of Rs.39,37,000/- and a sum of Rs.66,16,533/-
from the accounts of his wife; all total Rs.1,05,53,533/- in
the account of the said company Evoreach Ventures Pvt
Ltd/personal account of Chandra Sekhar Sahoo, Kabita
Rana and other accounts, but when the informant asked
for the return of his investment, the said Chandra Sekhar
Sahoo gave further impression that the said
investment/returns were being reinvested in DELTAAI
platform on the assurance of the same be doubled within
180 days and he also shared the user ID and Password of
such platform, but the said platform stopped functioning
from the month of February, 2024. The informant
accordingly, approached the said Chandra Sekhar Sahoo,
but in vain, but later it was found by him that the said
company and its office at Bhubaneswar and Talcher were
subsequently closed down and it was learnt by the
informant that the said company had no authority to
accept deposits from public in terms of the RBI guidelines.
Finding the petitioner and the MD together with other
Directors of M/s. Evoreach Ventures Pvt Ltd. to have
cheated him by misappropriating his investment after
creating false, fabricated and forged documents, the
informant Jayant Mishra lodged the FIR paving the way for
registration of EOW Bhubaneswar PS Case No. 18 of 2025
which resulted in submission of charge sheet against the
petitioner and others for the offences indicated supra.
3. In the course of hearing of bail application,
Ms. Deepali Mahapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that although the petitioner is a Director of the
company, but she is the sleeping Director and she has no
role either in collecting money or depositing or
misappropriating the same, rather she has been falsely
framed in this case because of the alleged role of her
husband and the petitioner having been detained in
custody since long and charge sheet having already been
submitted without any material against the petitioner, she
may kindly be granted bail.
3.1. In opposing the prayer for bail of the
petitioner, Mr.Anil Kumar Nayak, learned counsel for the
OPID submits that so far the submission with regard to the
petitioner being the sleeping Director of the company is
out and out false and she has definite role in this case
because not only she has actively participated in collecting
the money, but also has transacted money by issuing
cheques as a authorized signatory of the company and
thereby, she having definite role with criminal
antecedents, her bail application may kindly be rejected.
3.2. Mr.Sk. Attiullah, learned counsel appearing
for the victim-investors Abdul Rabani, Md.Sahabaz Khan
and Ram Bacha submits that the petitioner was arrested
with much difficulty from Greater Noida with lot of
expenses and labour of the State Government, but the
petitioner has in fact not only cheated the investors
namely Abdul Rabani, Md.Sahabaz Khan and Ram Bacha,
but also she has cheated many others and thereby
complaint cases have also been instituted against the
petitioner for cheating the innocent depositors and the
petitioner having definite role in cheating the innocent
depositors, her bail application may kindly be rejected.
4. After having considered the rival submissions
upon perusal of record, it appears that the present
petitioner is the wife of principal accused Chandra Sekhar
Sahoo and she is one of the Director of the said company,
but the main allegation of collecting investment from the
public is directed against co-accused Chandra Sekhar
Sahoo and other Director Kabita Rana, however, the copy
of charge sheet as supplied indicates that the financial
investigation in respect of petitioner-Jharana Sahoo is still
in progress, but she has already been taken into custody
since 12.12.2025 and in the meantime, charge sheet has
already been submitted. Besides, the petitioner is a lady
and her husband is the principal accused in this case, but
so far investigation as conducted, no material has been
collected against the petitioner for receiving any
investment in her account. It is no doubt disclosed by the
petitioner that she has been implicated in other two cases
in Kantabanjhi PS Case No. 509 of 2024 and 64 of 2025
and in ICC Case No. 04 of 2026, but the State has not
disclosed the details of the aforesaid cases before this
Court. On the other hand, it is claimed by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is only name
lender and she has no role in the commission of crime
which is of course subject to scrutiny on the basis of
materials collected in the course of investigation. The
paramount consideration in granting bail is securing
attendance of the accused in the trial, but nothing has
been brought on record to indicate that the petitioner
would abscond or would not make herself available in the
trial, if released on bail. Besides, the petitioner being a
lady is also entitled to the benefit of first proviso appended
to Sec. 480 of BNSS.
5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstance and
taking account the pretrial detention of the petitioner in
custody and her status as a lady and keeping in view the
submission of charge sheet in this case, this Court without
expressing any opinion on merit admits the petitioner to
bail.
6. Hence, the bail application of the Petitioner
stands allowed and she 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.
7. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules.
Needless to say, the aforesaid order shall not constitute a
precedent for grant of bail to co-accused persons. A soft
copy of this order be immediately communicated to the
concerned Court, who shall afterwards communicate the
same to the concerned Jail through e-mail for reference.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Signed by: KISHORE KUMAR SAHOO
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Date: 10-Apr-2026 11:59:32
Dated the 9th day of April, 2026/Kishore
