Bail is granted when the accused has not misused liberty, factors indicate compliance, and the presumption of innocence is upheld; restrictions are imposed to ensure trial cooperation and prevent absconding.

JUDGMENT

G. Satapathy, J.

1. Since the Petitioner herein is an accused in all the three criminal cases of similar nature in Pipili PS Case Nos. 122 of 2025, 123 of 2025 & 124 of 2025 and the allegation in all those three cases disclose a similar pattern of transaction with the Petitioner being a common link, all these three bail applications are heard together and disposed of by this common order with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The Petitioner in these three bail applications U/S.483 of BNSS seeks for grant of bail in connection with Pipili PS Case No.122 of 2025 corresponding to GR Case No.193 of 2025;Pipili PS Case No. 123 of 2025 corresponding to GR Case No. 194 of 2025;and Pipili PS Case No. 124 of 2025 corresponding to GR Case No.195 of 2025 being charge sheeted for commission of offences punishable U/Ss. 336(2)/ 336(3)/ 338/ 339/ 342/ 340(2)/ 319(2)/ 318(4)/ 316(2)/ 61(2)/3(5) of BNS pending in the Court of learned JMFC, Pipili.

3. Facts in precise are that in BLAPL No. 8167 of 2025 which arises out of Pipili PS Case No. 122 of 2025, the informant Pradip Kumar Beuria alleged that acting on the inducement of the Petitioner, he agreed to purchase a piece of land at Khanhapur Mouza belonging to one Ramachandra Pradhan and others and accordingly, settled the amount on 13.11.2024 with payment of advance and it was agreed upon that the subsequent installment would be transacted through bank transfer on the assurance of registration of the sale deed on 18.01.2025, but even after receiving a sum of Rs. 2,05,00,000(Rupees Two Crores Five Lakhs) & some odd amount through admitted bank transaction, the Petitioner did not cooperate for registration of the sale deed which eventually led to registration of FIR in Pipili PS Case No. 122 of 2025. Similarly, in BLAPL No. 8283 of 2025 which arises out of Pipili PS Case No. 123 of 2025 corresponding to GR Case No. 194 of 2025, the same informant namely Pradip Kumar Beuria has alleged that on the inducement of the Petitioner, he agreed to purchase a parcel of land at the same Mouza belonging to one Jagu Pradhan and paid advance money and further installment between November, 2024 and January, 2025, totally more than Rs.50,00,000/-(Rupees Fifty Lakhs), but the land was never registered despite receipt of the consideration amount. More or less is the same allegation in BLAPL No. 7068 of 2025 arising out of Pipili PS Case No. 124 of 2025 corresponding to GR Case No.195 of 2025, wherein the informant alleged that in the month of November, 2024, the Petitioner induced him to purchase a land situated at Mouza Khanhapur by showing forged documents and introducing him by impersonating a person as land owner Kelu Charan Majhi who had died long ago and pursuant to which, the informant paid of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) in cash and Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) through bank transfer on 13.11.2024 followed by further bank transfer through RTGs for sum of Rs. 38,00,000/-(Rupees Thirty Eight Lakhs) and Rs. 35,85,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakh Eighty Five Thousand) on 16.01.2025 on the assurance that sale deed would be registered on 17.01.2025, however, the Petitioner did not register the sale deed. The investigation in all the three cases resulted in submission of charge sheet for the offences as indicated supra.

3.1. It is, however, alleged by the prosecution that the Petitioner acted as an intermediary from the side of the land owner and facilitated transaction by inducing the informants to part with substantial sum of money, but did not ensure execution of sale deed giving rise to allegation of cheating, criminal breach of trust and allied offences by forg