Bail is the rule while incarceration is the exception; absence of direct allegations against the petitioner supports bail in the context of ongoing pre-trial detention.

JUDGMENT :

G. Satapathy, J.

1. This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Cyber Crime PS Case No.15 of 2025 corresponding to CT Case No.6 of 2025 pending in the file of learned Presiding Officer, Designated Court under OPID Act, Cuttack, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.318(2)/318(4)/3(5) of BNS r/w Sections 4/5/6 of Prize Chits & Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act and Section 6 of OPID Act and Section 66-D of IT Act.

2. The short facts involved in this case are that co-accused Jyoti Prakash Pallai was promoting online betting and, accordingly, for betting purpose, the complainant Sashibrata Swain contacted the co- accused Jyoti Prakash Pallai, who provided him two online URLs, such as www.dream444.com and www.dream666.com and being induced, the complainant Sashibrata Swain transferred total sum of Rs.1,66,25,003/- to the account of co-accused Jyoti Prakash Pallai on various dates w.e.f. 26.08.2022 to 10.01.2025 through online mode and the complainant being addicted to betting, also transferred money to the account of the co-accused Jyoti Prakash Pallai through the Phonepe number of his staffs and wife, however, in order to get trust of the petitioner, co-accused Jyoti Prakash Pallai refunded a sum of Rs.57,45,583/- from his account and through the account of Rohan Enterprises, however, the complainant has lost Rs.1,08,79,420/- in the process. Accordingly, on the FIR of the complainant Sashibrata Swain, Crime Branch Cyber Crime PS Case No.15 of 2025 was registered against the co-accused Jyoti Prakash Pallai and Rohan, but later it was ascertained that the present petitioner is the proprietor of the Rohan Enterprises and he, thereby, has been taken into custody in this case. The petitioner being unsuccessful in securing his liberty before the learned trial Court is ultimately before this Court in this bail application.

3. In the course of hearing, Mr. Bishnu Prasad Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is no way connected in this case, rather the petitioner has invested and transferred money to the co-accused, but the present petitioner has never instigated or induced the complainant to invest money in online betting or received any direct investment from him and, thereby, the petitioner being innocent person and charge-sheet having already been submitted, he may kindly be granted bail.

3.1. On the other hand, Mr. Anupam Rath, learned counsel for the informant, however, strongly opposes the bail application of the petitioner by contending inter-alia that not only the present petitioner has definite role, but also he has refunded money and made direct transaction with the complainant and the CDR analysis of the phone numbers of the petitioner and the complainant reveals frequent talk between them and the money of the petitioner having been transferred to the account of the petitioner, he is prima facie involved in this case and the complainant having lost his hard earned money of crores rupees due to the fraud committed by the petitioner and co-accused, the bail application of the petitioner may kindly be rejected.

3.2. On the other hand, Mr. Anil Kumar Nayak, learned counsel for the OPID, however, by producing the written instruction received from the DSP, Cyber PS-cum-IO submits that there was frequent transaction between the petitioner and the complainant through their accounts and a sum of Rs.57,45,583/- has been refunded from the account of co-accused and the petitioner and the petitioner being prima facie found to be involved in this case, his bail application may kindly be rejected.

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