[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Sk. Wasiul Islam @ Rohan vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite Party on 4 February, 2026
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL NO.7241 of 2025
(In the matter of application under Section 483 of
BNSS, 2023).
SK. Wasiul Islam @ Rohan ... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha ... Opposite Party
For Petitioner : Mr. B.P. Pradhan, Advocate
For Opposite Party : Mr. A.K. Nayak, Advocate
(OPID)
Mr. A. Rath, Advocate
(Informant)
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:04.02.2026(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
Cyber Crime PS Case No.15 of 2025 corresponding to
CT Case No.6 of 2025 pending in the file of learned
Presiding Officer, Designated Court under OPID Act,
Cuttack, for commission of offences punishable
U/Ss.318(2)/318(4)/3(5) of BNS r/w Sections 4/5/6 of
Prize Chits & Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act
and Section 6 of OPID Act and Section 66-D of IT Act.
2. The short facts involved in this case are
that co-accused Jyoti Prakash Pallai was promoting
online betting and, accordingly, for betting purpose, the
complainant Sashibrata Swain contacted the co-
accused Jyoti Prakash Pallai, who provided him two
online URLs, such as www.dream444.com and
www.dream666.com and being induced, the
complainant Sashibrata Swain transferred total sum of
Rs.1,66,25,003/- to the account of co-accused Jyoti
Prakash Pallai on various dates w.e.f. 26.08.2022 to
10.01.2025 through online mode and the complainant
being addicted to betting, also transferred money to the
account of the co-accused Jyoti Prakash Pallai through
the Phonepe number of his staffs and wife, however, in
order to get trust of the petitioner, co-accused Jyoti
Prakash Pallai refunded a sum of Rs.57,45,583/- from
his account and through the account of Rohan
Enterprises, however, the complainant has lost
Rs.1,08,79,420/- in the process. Accordingly, on the
FIR of the complainant Sashibrata Swain, Crime Branch
Cyber Crime PS Case No.15 of 2025 was registered
against the co-accused Jyoti Prakash Pallai and Rohan,
but later it was ascertained that the present petitioner
is the proprietor of the Rohan Enterprises and he,
thereby, has been taken into custody in this case. The
petitioner being unsuccessful in securing his liberty
before the learned trial Court is ultimately before this
Court in this bail application.
3. In the course of hearing, Mr. Bishnu Prasad
Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is no way connected in this case, rather
the petitioner has invested and transferred money to
the co-accused, but the present petitioner has never
instigated or induced the complainant to invest money
in online betting or received any direct investment from
him and, thereby, the petitioner being innocent person
and charge-sheet having already been submitted, he
may kindly be granted bail.
3.1. On the other hand, Mr. Anupam Rath,
learned counsel for the informant, however, strongly
opposes the bail application of the petitioner by
contending inter-alia that not only the present
petitioner has definite role, but also he has refunded
money and made direct transaction with the
complainant and the CDR analysis of the phone
numbers of the petitioner and the complainant reveals
frequent talk between them and the money of the
petitioner having been transferred to the account of the
petitioner, he is prima facie involved in this case and
the complainant having lost his hard earned money of
crores rupees due to the fraud committed by the
petitioner and co-accused, the bail application of the
petitioner may kindly be rejected.
3.2. On the other hand, Mr. Anil Kumar Nayak,
learned counsel for the OPID, however, by producing
the written instruction received from the DSP, Cyber
PS-cum-IO submits that there was frequent transaction
between the petitioner and the complainant through
their accounts and a sum of Rs.57,45,583/- has been
refunded from the account of co-accused and the
petitioner and the petitioner being prima facie found to
be involved in this case, his bail application may kindly
be rejected.
4. After having considered the rival
submissions upon perusal of record, there appears
allegation against the petitioner and the co-accused for
cheating the informant for a sum of Rs.1,08,79,420/-
through online betting App, but fact remains that the
complainant in his FIR has stated that he has contacted
the co-accused for online betting App and, accordingly,
transferred money to the account of co-accused Jyoti
Prakash Pallai, however, there was no direct allegation
leveled by the informant against the petitioner for
inciting or inducing him to transfer money for online
betting. Right now, preliminary charge-sheet has
already been submitted in this case and the IO has
seized incriminating materials from the petitioner and
co-accused persons. Further, the petitioner is in
custody since 27.05.2025 and, thereby, no custodial
interrogation is presumed to be required at such length
of time. Besides, no material has been collected to
indicate that the petitioner would avoid the process of
law.
5. No doubt, there is allegation against the
petitioner for cheating the informant for a huge amount
along with co-accused persons, but the same is subject
of trial. It is also not in dispute that bail should not be
withheld as a pre trial punishment, since bail is the
rule, but jail is the exception. In the aforesaid facts and
circumstance and taking into account the nature and
gravity of the offences as alleged against the petitioner
vis-à-vis the allegation sought to be brought against
him and regard being had to the pre trial detention of
the petitioner in custody with submission of preliminary
charge-sheet in the meantime and there being no
custodial interrogation of the petitioner required in this
case and keeping in view the other circumstances on
record in entirety including the grant of bail to co-
accused Sugata Majumder in BLAPL No.11864 of 2025,
this Court without expressing any view on merits
admits the petitioner to bail.
6. Hence, the bail application of the petitioner
stands allowed and the petitioner is allowed to go on
bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees
Two Lakh) 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 commit any
offence while on bail,
(ii) the petitioner in the course of trial shall
attend the trial Court on each date of posting
without fail unless his attendance is
dispensed with. In case the Petitioner fails
without sufficient cause to appear in the
Court in accordance with the terms of
the bail, the learned trial Court may
proceed against the Petitioner for
offence U/S.269 of BNS, 2023 in
accordance with law,
(iii) the petitioner shall surrender his
Passport, if any and not seized, in the Court
in seisin of the case till conclusion of trial,
unless he is permitted to take back such
Passport to use for specific purpose during
the pendency of case. If the petitioner is
not having any Passport, he may swear an
affidavit to that effect,
(iv) the petitioner shall inform the Court as
well as the Investigating Agency as to his
place 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 his residence. The
petitioners shall not change his address of
residence without intimating to the Court and
Investigating Agency.
7. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 4th day of February, 2026/Subhasmita
Location: High Court of Orissa
