ORISSA HIGH COURT
G. Satapathy, J.
Susanta Kumar Samal – Petitioners
versus
State of Odisha – Opp. Party
BLAPL Nos.7534 and 7952 of 2025
Decided on 31.10.2025
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 483 – Bail applications – Case registered under Sections 406/409/420/467/468/471/120-B of IPC – Statutory provisions of bail confer wide discretion on Court either to grant or refuse bail to applicant, but such exercise of discretion should not be arbitrary or de hors basic principles of bail – There is allegation against petitioners for large scale financial defalcation from bank account of society – Criminal antecedents of petitioners have not been disclosed by them in their bail applications – Bail always deals with two conflicting interests of individual liberty and societal interest, but personal liberty is paramount, however, it is not absolute in all the criminal cases and individual liberty must be subject to procedure established by law – In a case involving large scale financial fraud particularly those affecting public, Court shall be duty-bound to approach the case for bail in a cautious and guarded manner – Court considers it undesirable to grant bail to petitioners at this stage, especially when trial is yet to commence and material witnesses are yet to be examined – Bail declined. (Paras 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10)
Result: Bail applications rejected.
JUDGMENT
G. Satapathy, J.—These are the bail applications U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with EOW PS Case No.03 of 2025 corresponding to CT Case No.4(C) of 2025 pending in the file of learned Presiding Officer, Designated Court, Under OPID Act, Balasore, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.406/409/420/467/468/471/120-B of IPC, on the main allegation of committing large scale financial fraud and misappropriation of crores of rupees by receiving disproportionate high payment for commercial transaction made with Gandhamardan Loading Agency and Transporting Co-operative Society Ltd. with forged documents after entering into conspiracy with coaccused persons.
2. The background of facts giving rise to these two bail applications are that around eighteen years back, one society namely Gandhamardan Loading Agency and Transporting Co-operative Society Ltd, Suakati, Keonjhar (hereinafter referred to as “the society”) was created for the development of the affected villages of Gandhamardan Mines, Putulipani Mines and Khandadhar Mines, but since last seven years (2017-18 to 2023-24), the president and the secretary of the aforesaid organization with assistance of others were/are doing illegal business instead of doing developmental work by taking the loading work of extracted ores from these mines to their own hand without allowing any other organization to do the same and in the process, misappropriating a sum of Rs.40 to 50 Crores annually. It is alleged that the accused persons by forging various documents and showing false expenditure under fictitious heads towards “periphery development of the affected villages and fuel charges” has allegedly misappropriated the amount, which are unearthed in a special audit conducted due to specific complaints. It is further alleged that the funds generated from the monopoly business of loading of iron ores of the society were being allegedly siphoned off by the president & secretary of the society through cash or self cheques without proper supporting document like work orders or vouchers and by not recording the transactions in the official register. On the aforesaid allegation, one Biswanath Roul has lodged an FIR before Superintendent of Police, EOW Bhubaneswar against the president Manas Ranjan Barik, secretary Utkal Das and others office bearers of the society paving the way for registration of Bhubaneswar EOW PS Case No.03 of 2025 for commission of offences punishable U/S.406/ 409/ 420/ 467/ 468/ 471/ 120-B of IPC and the matter was investigated into and finding the complicity of the petitioners, they were taken into custody giving rise to these present bail applications after they became unsuccessful in approaching the PO, Designated Court (under OPID Act), Balasore for securing their liberty.
3. This Court has heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Parija, learned Sr. counsel who is being assisted by Mr. Arnav Behera, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No.7534 of 2025; Mr. C. Kanungo & Mr. A. Mohanty learned counsels for the petitioner in BLAPL No.7952 of 2025 and Mr. Partha Sarathi Nayak, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor in these matters and perused the record.
4. In advancing argument, Mr. Parija, learned Sr. counsel has submitted that the FIR has been lodged by one Biswanath Roul who is neither a member of the society nor is he a resident of the area of operation of the society, rather he is a rank outsider and the society is a private cooperative being self-financed and has never received any aid or funds from the government and thereby, the allegation of loss of public money or state revenue is untenable and any dispute regarding defalcation or embezzlement of money should have been appropriately addressed to by an aggrieved member U/S.67 r/w Sec.118 of the Odisha Cooperative Societies Act and any payment made to the Shankar Roadways was genuine commercial transaction pursuant to written agreement for loading, unloading and transportation work, and the
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee and Anr.
Ash Mohammad vs. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla babu and Anr.
CBI vs. Ramendu Chattopadhyay; (2020) 14 SCC 396. (Para 8) – Relied.
Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. CBI; (2013) 7 SCC 439. (Para 8) – Relied.
Bail – In a case involving large scale financial fraud particularly those affecting public, Court shall be duty-bound to approach the case for bail in a cautious and guarded manner.
The court determined that the serious allegations of financial fraud, coupled with the accused's criminal history and risk of witness tampering, justified a refusal of bail.
In serious fraud cases, bail may be denied due to substantial allegations, criminal antecedents, and flight risk, despite long custody periods.
Point of Law : Power under Section 438 of Cr.P.C, being an extraordinary remedy, has to be exercised sparingly, otherwise same would adversely affect investigation.
The court emphasized the balance between individual liberty and the interest of society in deciding bail applications, considering the nature and seriousness of economic offences and their impact on ....
Anticipatory bail should not be granted routinely in serious economic offences involving large-scale fraud, as custodial interrogation is crucial for effective investigation.
Court grants bail to the accused in economic offences considering age, health, and previous custody, despite serious allegations of financial misappropriation.
The court balanced the right to personal liberty with the need for the accused's presence at trial, emphasizing that continued custody should be based on the risk of interference in the administratio....
Bail is the rule and custody is the exception; without substantial evidence, personal liberty should not be curtailed.
Bail should not be denied solely based on the seriousness of the charges; considerations must include the necessity of ensuring the accused's presence at trial and not obstructing justice.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.