[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Deepak Kumar Dash vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite Party on 9 February, 2026
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL NOs.10424, 11090 & 11292 of 2025
(In the matter of applications under Section 483 of
BNSS, 2023).
Deepak Kumar Dash ... Petitioners
(In BLAPL No.10424 of 2025)
Ramahari Sahu
(In BLAPL No.11090 of 2025)
Chandan Kumar Sahu
(In BLAPL No.11292 of 2025)
-versus-
State of Odisha ... Opposite Party
For Petitioners : Ms. A. Mohanty, Advocate
(In BLAPL No.10424 of 2025)
Mr. R.N. Rout, Advocate
(In BLAPL No.11090 of 2025)
Mr. P.K. Nanda, Advocate
(In BLAPL No.11292 of 2025)
For Opposite : Mr. C. Mohanty, Addl. PP
Party Mr. M.K. Agrawalla, Advocate
(Informant)
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:09.02.2026(ORAL)
G. Satapathy, J.
1. These are the bail applications U/S.483 of
BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection
with CID Cyber Crime PS Case No.34 of 2024
corresponding to GR Case No.539 of 2024 pending in
the file of learned JMFC(III), Cuttack, for commission
of offences punishable U/Ss.419/420/465/467/486/
471/120-B/34 of IPC r/w Sections 66(C)/66(D) of IT
Act.
2. The relevant allegation as found in this
case is that on coming across some lucrative Facebook
advertisement to invest in stocks and IPOs, the
informant when clicked a link received from Whatsapp
account of Phone No.+91-9787120376, it was
persuaded to him to open an account and invest in the
said app namely "Jef CP" and, accordingly, the
informant invested the amount on the greed for higher
returns and in the process, he transferred a total sum
of Rs.1,45,85,000/- to ten bank accounts w.e.f. May
05, 2024 to June 27, 2024, however, on suspicion he
verified and later on, lodged an FIR paving the way for
registration of CID Cyber Crime PS Case No.34 of
2024 and in the course of investigation, finding the
involvement of the petitioners in some way, they have
been taken into custody, which ultimately led them to
approached this Court for grant of bail in these bail
applications.
3. In the course of hearing, Ms. Abhilipsa
Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL
No.10424 of 2025 submits that the petitioner is not
aware of any amount received in his account nor has
he any role in deceiving the informant or causing loss
to the informant, rather the petitioner being a
bonafide account holder has not made any transaction
with the amount so received in his account and a sum
of Rs.12,25,000/- has been credited to his account in
four transaction. Ms. Mohanty, accordingly, prays to
grant bail to the petitioner.
3.1. Similarly, Mr. Rajendra Narayan Rout,
learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No.11090
of 2025 submits that a sum of Rs.73,500/- was
credited to the account of the petitioner from co-
accused Chandan Kumar Sahu, but he does not know
as to how the amount has been credited to his
account.
3.2. Similarly, Mr. Prasanta Kumar Nanda,
learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No.11292
of 2025 also submits that a sum of Rs.4,20,000/- was
credited to the account of the petitioner, but as per
the allegation on record, he has made withdrawal of
Rs.3,00,000/-, however, he has also credited some
amount in the account of petitioner-Ramahari Sahu.
3.3. Further, all the counsels appearing for the
respective petitioners submit that the petitioners were
in custody for a substantial period and in the
meanwhile, charge-sheet has already been submitted,
but all the offences alleged against them are triable by
Magistrate and, therefore, the petitioners may kindly
be granted bail.
3.4. In opposing the prayer for bail of the
petitioners, Mr. Manoj Kumar Agrawalla, learned
counsel for the informant by drawing attention of the
Court to the transaction to the account of the
petitioner, submits that these petitioners being
involved in fraudulent transaction made to their
account, they are not entitled to be the benefit of bail.
Mr. Agrawalla accordingly prays to reject the bail
application of the petitioners.
3.5. In opposing the prayer for bail of the
petitioners, Mr. C. Mohanty, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor only reiterates the allegation leveled
against the petitioners and prays to reject their bail
applications.
4. After having considered the rival
submissions upon perusal of record, there appears
some allegation against the petitioners for receiving
some amount in their accounts, but the petitioners are
in custody since 11/12.09.2025 and in the meantime,
charge-sheet has already been submitted. Further, it
is not brought to the notice of the Court that any of
the petitioners, except the petitioner Chandan Kumar
Sahu has withdrawn any amount, rather the allegation
depicts that the petitioner-Deepak Kumar Dash has
transferred a sum of Rs.4,15,000/- to the account of
the petitioner Chandan Kumar Sahu. In the aforesaid
facts and circumstance and taking into account the
money trail involved in these cases and regard being
had to the pre trial detention of the petitioners in
custody and keeping in view the offences alleged
against the petitioners 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 there
being no material brought on record to indicate that
the petitioners would abscond in the event of their
grant of bail, this Court without expressing any view
on merits admits each of the petitioners to bail.
5. Hence, these three bail applications of the
petitioners namely Deepak Kumar Dash (In BLAPL
No.10424 of 2025), Ramahari Sahu (In BLAPL
No.11090 of 2025) and Chandan Kumar Sahu (In
BLAPL No.11292 of 2025) are allowed and each of the
petitioners is allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail
bonds of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) 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 petitioners in the course of trial shall
attend the trial Court on each date of
posting without fail unless their attendance
is dispensed with. In case the Petitioners
fail without sufficient cause to appear
in the Court in accordance with the
terms of the bail, the learned trial
Court may proceed against the
Petitioners for offence U/S.269 of BNS,
2023 in accordance with law,
(ii) the petitioners shall inform the Court as
well as the Investigating Agency as to their
places of residence during the trial by
providing their mobile number(s), residential
address, e-mail, if any, and other documents
in support of proof of their residence. The
petitioners shall not change their address of
residence without intimating to the Court and
Investigating Agency.
6. Accordingly, these BLAPLs stand disposed
of. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 9th day of February, 2026/Subhasmita
Location: High Court of Orissa
