SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Ori) 207

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
G. Satapathy, J.
Deepak Kindo - Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha - Opposite Party
BLAPL NO.12612 of 2025
Decided On : 17-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Y. Das, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. N.C. Mohanty, Advocate
For the Opposite Party :Mr. A.K. Nayak, Advocate (OPID) Mr. S.C. Pradhan, Addl. PP

In serious fraud cases, bail may be denied due to substantial allegations, criminal antecedents, and flight risk, despite long custody periods.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B - Bail application - Allegations of cheating and fraud against managing director of non-banking financial company - Petitioner was accused of embezzling loan funds amounting to Rs.109 crores - Non-disclosure of criminal antecedents by applicant is viewed seriously - Prosecution’s apprehension of flight and potential tampering of evidence against the petitioner were substantial. (Paras 2, 12, 14)

(B) Bail - Consideration factors - The Court emphasizes the necessity of weighing the gravity of allegations, possibility of absconding, and criminal antecedents of the accused in deciding bail applications - Just because a petitioner has been in custody for a certain period does not automatically justify bail if allegations are severe. (Paras 8, 12)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, as managing director of Sambandh Finserve Private Limited, faced allegations for misappropriation of loan amounts received from Annapurna Financial Private Limited, failing to repay despite assurances. FIR lodged accused the petitioner of submitting forged bank statements to obtain loans fraudulently.

Findings of Court:
The court found sufficient grounds to deny bail based on serious allegations and criminal history, emphasizing the need for witness examination and caution about granting bail under such circumstances.

Issues: The core issue revolved around the safety of evidence and apprehensions regarding the accused's potential to flee from justice.

Ratio Decidendi: Citing precedents, the court concluded that in serious offenses, a history of criminal activity can merit denial of bail, especially with concerns over witness tampering and flight risk.

Result: Bail application rejected.

Table of Content
1. facts of the case and allegations against the petitioner. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments for and against bail application. (Para 3)
3. court’s analysis of bail application factors. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. court’s reasoning based on precedents and seriousness of the charges. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
5. conclusion rejecting the bail application. (Para 15)

JUDGMENT :

G. Satapathy, J.

1. This is an application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with EOW-CID, CB PS Case No.17 of 2021 corresponding to CT Case No.35 of 2023 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 406 /420/467/468/471/120-B of the IPC pending in the file of learned PO Designated Court under OPID Act, Cuttack.

2. The allegation against the petitioner in precise is that the petitioner was the Managing Director of Sambandh Finserve Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as “SFPL”), a non-banking financial company having its corporate office at civil township, Rourkela and it had the permission of R.B.I. to carryout business of Non-Banking Financial Services (NBFC) & Micro Finance Institutions (MFI) operation and the petitioner being the Managing Director of SFPL approached to another NBFC registered with RBI namely, Annapurna Financial Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as, “AFPL”) for financial support to carryout financial activities effectively by giving loans to different individual entities and Joint Liabilities Groups and agreeing with the proposal, AFPL, accordingly, sanctioned two term loans amounting to Rs.3crores and Rs.2crores, total Rs.5crores with interest @ 15.50% per annum with further condition of repayment in 12 equal monthly installments starting from two months after disbursement of the loan amount in favour of SFPL on execution of two agreements by SFPL(borrower) and AFPL(lender) on 28thSeptember, 2020 at Bhubaneswar and accordingly, Rs.5 crores was credited to the account of SFPL, but subsequently AFPL coming to know about the fiscal fraud committed by SFPL, approached the petitioner to repay back the loan, to which the petitioner only repaid Rs.50 lakhs with assurance to pay back the balance loan amount and thereafter, the petitioner did not repay the rest of the amount even after one year. It is also alleged that SFPL had not utilized the loan amount for lending loan to women joint liability groups and managed to embezzle the entire loan amount with dishonest intention and deceived AFPL in not paying the loan.

On this issue, the head of Inorganic business of AFPL namely, Mr.Sabyasachi Rout lodged an FIR before the S.P., E.O.W., CID, C.B., Orissa, Bhubaneswar against the petitioner for deceitfully cheating AFPL by stating that prior to sanction of loan, SFPL had submitted one bank statement from 1st July, 2020 to 28th September, 2020 showing closing balance at Rs.17,51,33,609/- as on 25th September, 2020 by manipulating document instead of providing the actual correct balance of Rs.15,28,829/- as on that day and thereby, such bank statement of SFPL was found to be fake and fabricated to avail the loan by producing forged documents deliberately. On receipt of the F.I.R., EOW, Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No. 17 dated 31.12.2021 was registered for offences U/Ss. 406/420/467/468/471/120-B of IPC and the matter was investigated into by DSP, Sasmita Sahoo. In the course of investigation, similar complaints were received from other lenders like DCB Bank, SIDBI, BOPA PTE Pvt. Ltd. and Diya Vikash Capital Pvt. Ltd. and the total misappropriated amount of Rs.109Cores was allegedly found against the petitioner, SFPL and others. Accordingly, the petitioner was arrested and forwarded to the Court and the investigation accordingly resulted in submission of charge sheet against the petitioner and others for offences U/Ss. 406/420/467/468/471/120-B of and right now the petitioner and others are facing trial in this case.

3. In Course of hearing of bail application, Mr. Yasobant Das, learned Seni

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top