The bail application was rejected due to the petitioner's absconding and noncompliance with bail conditions, emphasizing the importance of respecting legal processes.

JUDGMENT :

G. Satapathy, J.

1. This is the 2^nd bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with EOW Case No.04 of 2022 corresponding to CT Case No.03 of 2022 pending in the file of learned Presiding Officer, Designated Court under OPID Act, Cuttack, being charge-sheeted for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.406/ 420/ 467/ 468/ 471/120-B of IPC r/w Section 6 of OPID Act and 66-D of IT Act.

2. The petitioner seeks for bail in the above noted case which arises out of an FIR lodged by one Swadhin Kumar Sahoo stating therein that he came to know from one Haresh Ranjan Dash about one Company named as IAAVIC Pvt. Ltd. and its directors namely Arpan Patel (petitioner) and Adyajyoti Nayak of Odisha and he was impressed upon by the said Haresh Ranjan Dash to invest money in the IAAVIC Company on the assurance of 1% mutual profit on the investment on weekly five days basis up to 200 days and he accordingly, invested Rs.15 Lakhs in the aforesaid Company, which was acknowledged by the Company through e-mail and money receipt-cum- agreement and initially, the Company paid him 1% mutual profit of Rs.15,000/-, however, this Company stopped payment of such mutual profit w.e.f. 12.11.2021 and thereafter, he contacted the said Haresh Ranjan Dash, who told him about the return of money to start from 1^st December, but even after two months thereafter, the Company failed to provide any mutual profit to him and, accordingly, he ascertained that like him, other investors who have invested crores of rupees have been duped by the Company.

On the FIR of the informant, Khurda EOW Case No.04 of 2022 was registered against the petitioner and Adyajyoti Nayak, the directors of IAAVIC Pvt. Ltd. along with the Company IAAVIC Pvt. Ltd. and in the course of investigation, finding the prima facie complicity of the petitioner and co-accused in this case, they were taken into custody and, accordingly, it is ascertained in the course of investigation that 663 nos. of investors from Odisha, Gujarat, UP, MP, Karnataka, Rajasthan had made investment in this Company for around Rs.6,99,35,700/- approximately, which have been embezzled and misappropriated. After conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was placed against the petitioner, co-accused Adyajyoti Nayak and the Company IAAVIC Pvt. Ltd., being represented by the petitioner and co-accused for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.406/ 420/ 467/ 468/ 471/ 120-B of IPC r/w Section 6 of OPID Act, 2011 and 66-D of IT Act. The petitioner being released on interim bail did not surrender and as a consequence thereof, he was taken into custody subsequently on 26.06.2025, but as his bail application was rejected by the learned trial Court, he is at present before this Court in this bail application.

3. Heard, Mr. Yasobant Das, learned Senior Counsel, who is being assisted by Mr. Nirmal Chandra Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anil Kumar Nayak, learned counsel for the OPID in the matter and perused the record. In addition to oral arguments, the rival counsels file two separate date charts indicating therein the sequence of events involved in this case. On merit, Mr. Das, learned Senior Counsel submits that since co-accused Adyajyoti Nayak has already been granted bail, the petitioner should also be admitted to bail and, accordingly, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioner, but Mr. Nayak, however, strongly, opposes the bail application of the petitioner by contending inter-alia that since the petitioner has absconded from the process of law after being released on interim bail, his prayer for bail may kindly be rejected.

4. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against the pe