Kusha @ Ramesh Chandra vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite Party
2026 Latest Caselaw 222 Ori

Orissa High Court

Kusha @ Ramesh Chandra vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite Party on 12 January, 2026

Author: G. Satapathy

Bench: G. Satapathy

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
              BLAPL No.10322 of 2025

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

   Kusha @ Ramesh Chandra                     ...       Petitioner
   Majhi
                     -versus-
   State of Odisha                            ... Opposite Party

   For Petitioner               : Mr. B. Mohapatra, Advocate


   For Opposite Party           : Mr. C. Mohanty, Addl. PP
                                     Mr. S. Palit, Sr. Advocate
                                     (informant)

       CORAM:
                    JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

DATE OF HEARING & DATE OF JUDGMENT:12.01.2026 (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

Special Crime Unit PS Case No.05 of 2025

corresponding to CT Case No.810 of 2025 pending in

the file of learned JMFC-III, Bhubaneswar for

commission of offences punishable U/Ss.420/ 465/

468/ 471/ 474/ 34 of IPC.

2. The facts relevant for disposal of this bail

application are that the informant is the Managing

Director (MD) of M/S. Stairway Gold & Diamond Pvt.

Ltd. and M/S. Stairway Developers Pvt. Ltd. and he

came in contact with the petitioner and his wife

Anisha Subudhi, who by showing forged authorization

letters of RBI to deal with gold business allured the

informant to invest in their business for high returns

and accordingly, they managed to take investment/loan

from the informant for a crores of rupees in different

dates. In the process, the petitioner and wife cheated

the informant for a sum of Rs.5.6Crore, which is the

outstanding due on them after return of certain amount

by showing forged documents.

3. In the course of hearing Mr. Bidyalok

Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner while not

disputing about registration of cases against the

petitioner submits that the matter relates to

documentary transaction and thereby, once the

petitioner is released on bail, he can repay the amount

in terms of the contractual agreement, but on the other

hand Mr. Subir Palit, learned Sr. counsel by taking this

Court through the materials placed on record submits

that the manner in which the petitioner had taken the

loan/investment from the informant only to cheat him

speaks in volume, which is evident from the intention

of the petitioner from the very beginning. Mr. Palit

further submits that the petitioner has outstanding due

of Rs.5.6Crores to the informant, but he has refused to

pay the same for quite some time for which the

informant has no other option to take recourse of

criminal action against the petitioner, but the petitioner

being found involved in eight cases of similar nature

has never the intention to repay the amount to the

informant and he has only the intention to cheat the

informant & others for Crores of rupees by showing

forged documents and therefore, the bail application of

the petitioner may kindly be rejected.

3.1 On the other hand, Mr. C. Mohanty, learned

Addl. PP by highlighting the criminal antecedents of the

petitioner, prays to reject the bail application of the

petitioner.

4. After having considered the rival submissions

upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against

the petitioner for duping the informant and it is alleged

that the petitioner has an outstanding dues of

Rs.5.6Crores to the informant. It is also not disputed

that the petitioner is further involved in eight cases,

however, it is acknowledged by learned counsel for the

petitioner that all the cases are similar nature, but the

petitioner has been remanded in those cases after

lodging of this case. The allegation against the

petitioner discloses commission of economic offence

which is right now rampant in the society, but it should

be dealt with sternly since the economic offence not

only ruins the aggrieved person, but it also has the

impact on the economic stability of the society, which

somehow affects the economic growth of the country.

No doubt the petitioner has been detained in custody

for some time just few months, however, his alleged

involvement in other cases writ large.

5. Bail as it is understood is transfer of custody

of the accused person from law to surety, but grant or

refusal of bail to the accused for commission of non-

bailable offences is purely discretion of the Court,

however, such discretion should not be arbitrary or

whimsical, rather it must be in conformity with sound

judicial discipline inasmuch as more the discretion more

is the responsibility since no one can be detained in

custody except according to the procedure established

by law. The judicial discipline demands that bail should

be considered to a person accused of offence(s) by

balancing his personal liberty with set of guiding factors

to consider the bail application as laid down in a

plethora of decisions and such guiding factors in dealing

of the bail application of the accused persons for

commission of non-bailable offences are as follows:-

(i) Whether, there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to belief that the accused had committed the offence;

(ii) Nature and gravity of the accusation;

(iii) Severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;

(iv) Danger of accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;

(v) Character, behavior, means, position and standing of the accused;

(vi) Likelihood of the offence being repeated;

(vii) Reasonable apprehension of witness being influence;

(viii) Danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail;

(ix) Criminal antecedent of the accused; and

(x) The tripod test.

6. Applying the aforesaid parameters by

balancing the personal liberty of the petitioner in this

case, it appears that there is prima facie allegation

against the petitioner for cheating the informant by

showing forged documents and out of the offences

alleged against the petitioner, the offence U/S.474 of

IPC prescribes maximum punishment upto life. In

addition in a case of like this, the criminal antecedent of

the accused for similar nature cannot be brushed aside

since the economic offence of this magnitude not only

destroy the financial conditions of the aggrieved

person, but also has definite impact on the economic

stability of the society and that is the precise reason

why economic offences are considered to be a class

apart and require a different approach in the matter

relating to bail. The petitioner in this case has never

denied his criminal antecedents for similar offences in

eight criminal cases, but he has surreptitiously avoided

to disclose the offences and the amount involved in

those cases, however, the petitioner has only given the

eight case numbers without any further details.

7. In view of the aforesaid facts and

circumstances and taking into account the nature and

gravity of the offences as alleged against the petitioner

vis-à-vis the accusation sought to be brought against

him and regard being had to the involvement of the

petitioner in series of other cases of similar nature and

taking into account the other circumstances on record

in entirety, this Court does not consider it proper to

grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

8. Hence, the bail application of the petitioner

stands rejected. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands

disposed of. A soft copy of the order be immediately

communicated to the learned trial Court.

(G. Satapathy) Judge

Signature NotOrissa High Court, Cuttack, Verified Dated the12th day of January, 2026/Jayakrushna Digitally Signed Signed by: JAYAKRUSHNA DASH Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 14-Jan-2026 15:18:27