IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL NO.10745 of 2025 (In the matter of application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023).

Dillip Kumar Nayak … Petitioner -versus-

State of Odisha … Opposite Party For Petitioner : Mr. D. Panda, Advocate For Opposite Party : Mr. M.K. Mohanty, Addl. PP Mr. B.R. Mohanty, Advocate (Informant)

CORAM:

JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:22.12.2025(ORAL)

G. Satapathy, J.

1. This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with EOW PS Case No.13 of 2025 corresponding to CT Case No.16 of 2025 pending in the file of learned PO OPID Court, Cuttack, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.406/420/467/468/471 of IPC, on the main allegation of deceitfully inducing the informant and his wife with false assurance to provide good returns for investment in real-estate business and in the process, managing to dupe them for Rs.12,42,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Crores Forty Two Lakhs only) by misappropriating the investment of the informant and his wife on the pretext of purchasing land in their name, but purchasing the land in his own name and siphoning part of the amount taken from the informant. 2. In the course of hearing, Mr. Devashis Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation on record in fact appears to be civil in nature, but has been given the colour of criminal case, when the informant has failed to obtain an injunction order against the petitioner over a civil dispute existing between them and the petitioner, therefore, having detained in custody for a substantial period may kindly be granted bail.

2.1. In opposing the prayer for bail, Mr. C. Mohanty, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that not only the petitioner has duped the informant for crores of rupees, but also there is sufficient material available against the petitioner for proceeding against him in a criminal case and right now, the investigating being going on, the prayer for bail of the petitioner may kindly be rejected.

2.2. On the other hand, Mr. Bibhuti Ranjan Mohanty, learned counsel for the informant submits in vehemence that the petitioner has in fact not only cheated the informant by taking his hard-earned money, but also has forged documents to siphon crores of rupees of the informant and his wife which is evident from the dishonored of numbers of cheques issued by the petitioner for insufficient fund/differing of signatures of the petitioner. Mr. Mohanty accordingly prays to reject the bail application of the petitioner.

3. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against the petitioner for duping the informant and his wife for a sum of Rs.12,42,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Crores Forty Two Lakhs only) and right now the investigation is going on, however, this Court reminds that the statutory provisions of bail confers wide discretion on the Court either to grant or refuse bail to the applicant, but such exercise of discretion should not be arbitrary or de hors the basic principles laid down by different constitutional Courts in a catena of decision. The parameters under which the discretion has to be considered has been elucidated by the Apex Court in the decision relied on by the informant in the case of Prasanta Kumar Sarkar Vrs. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr : (2010) 14 SCC 496, wherein the Apex Court in Paragraph 9 has held as under:-

“9. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:

(i) Whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the Accused had committed the offence;

(ii) Nature and gravity of the accusation;

(iii) Severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;

(iv) D