The court emphasized that pre-arrest bail may be denied based on the severity of allegations and potential complicity, regardless of co-accused status.

ORDER :

V. NARASINGH, J.

1. Since all these ABLAPLs relate to the same FIR, on the consent of the parties, they are taken up together and are disposed of by this common order.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

3. The Petitioners are seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with C.T Case No.1247 of 2025 pending on the file of learned S.D.J.M., Jharsuguda corresponding to Lakhanpur P.S. Case No.123 of 2025 under Sections 296/308(5)/61(2) of BNS.

4. The allegation in essence is that the present Petitioners were conjointly extorting money to cover the alleged loss suffered by one of the co-accused, namely, Nandkishor Agrawal in submitting tender for transportation of coal from MCL.

It is alleged by the prosecution that a sum of Rs.145/- per truck was being illegally collected and confirmation of such payment was reflected by a stamp “LSS” affixed on the documents of transportation and only thereafter, the trucks were allowed to enter MCL premises.

It is also alleged that unless there was such stamp in the challan, the trucks could not enter the premises of the MCL to carry out transportation of coal.

5. Referring to the statement of the Complainant, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the State that a prima facie case is well made out under the alleged sections including under Sections 308(5) of BNS, [308. Extortion. (5) Whoever commits extortion by putting any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to that person or to any other, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.] for which maximum punishment prescribed is 10 years. As such no leniency ought to be shown to the Petitioners.

6. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that admittedly none of the Petitioners are named accused. Hence, the same ought to be taken into account while considering the prayer for pre-arrest bail.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State, Mr. Panda, learned ASC submits that it is the settled position of law that FIR cannot be treated as an encyclopedia. Since the Petitioners’ complicity has come to fore in committing the alleged offence in a concerted manner, the modus operandi adopted by them ought not to be lost sight of.

8. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Tripathy being assisted by Mr. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner in ABLAPL No.7416 of 2025 that the Petitioner is cited as an accused only because he is the son of Nandkishor Agrawal.

8-A. Mr. Patnaik, learned Senior Counsel being assisted by Mr. Pattanayak, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner in ABLAPL No.7959 of 2025 submits that the Petitioner is admittedly the General Manager of MCL and posted on 17.3.2025 just one day before institution of the FIR in question.

8-B. Petitioners in ABLAPL Nos.9659, 9695, 9722 and 9732 of 2025 are the Project Manager, Technical Inspector, Assistant Manager and Nodal Officer of I-IBL, OCP, MCL, Lakhanpur area respectively.

9. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioners that even if the entire allegation of the prosecution is accepted at its face value, prima facie there is no complicity of the Petitioners in the case at hand. Hence, they may be protected by pre-arrest bail and the prosecution is indulging in witch-hunting on extraneous considerations.

10. Such submission is opposed by the learned counsel for the State, Mr. Panda, learned ASC referring to the confessional statements of the Petitioners in which they acknowledged that in a well concerted conspiracy they covered the alleged loss of Nandkishor Agrawal of IBL Company who was the successful bidder who, submitted tender 99% less than the estimated value.

11. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the State that taking into account the nature of allegations qua all the Petitioners unless they are subjected to custodial interrogation, further investigation would become fanciful. Hence, they ough