IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.12882 of 2025 Pallavi Mishra @ Pallavi Hota … Petitioner Mr.S.J.Biswal, Advocate -versus-

State of Orissa & another … Opposite Parties Mr. J.P.Patra, Advocate for the OPID CORAM:

JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

ORDER(ORAL)

Order No. 22.12.2025

02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).

2. This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Dhenkanal Town PS Case No.131 of 2022(EOW Bhubaneswar PS Case No. 10 of 2022) corresponding to CT Case No.04 of 2022 pending in the file of learned Presiding Officer, Designated Court under the OPID Act, Cuttack for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.420/406/467/468/471/120-B/506/34 of IPC read with Sec. 4, 5 & 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes(Banning) Act, 1978 and Sec. 6 of the OPID Act.

3. The gist of the allegation against the petitioner is that she along with her husband allured the informant and his friends to deposit money in their company M/s. Purple Qualves Financial Services Private Limited since 2018 and had issued bond papers to the depositors, but the depositors were initially returned with some amount of interest for certain period, however, subsequently since 2021, the petitioner and her husband did not return the interest on the principal amount to the depositors and when the depositors compelled to return the money, the husband of the petitioner issued certain cheques in the name of the company by forging signatures, but when the depositors deposited the cheques, the cheques got dishonured due to mismatch of signature of the husband of the petitioner on the cheques and in the process, the petitioner and her husband had cheated around Rs.5,24,36,700/-(Rupees Five Crores Twenty Four Lakhs Thirty Six Thousand Seven Hundred only).

4. In the course of hearing, Mr.Soumya Jyoti Biswal, learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the order passed by the Apex Court in SLP (Criminal) No. 13222 of 2025 submits that co-accused having graver accusation has already been granted bail by the Apex court, but the petitioner is in custody since 05.05.2022 and, therefore, the petitioner may kindly be granted bail.

4.1. In opposing such prayer of bail, Mr.J.P.Patra, learned counsel for the OPID, however, strongly submits that not only the petitioner is prima facie involved in this case, but also she and her husband are resorting to dilatory tactics to stall the hearing of the case, since the husband of the petitioner after being released on bail has filed an application before this Court to stall the hearing and, therefore, the petitioner should not be granted bail solely on the ground of parity.

5. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears no dispute about the allegation appearing against the petitioner, but the petitioner is in custody since last three and half years and trial has already commenced with examination of 09 witnesses, however, the trial is yet to be concluded. In the SLP, the Apex Court while granting bail to co- accused Satyaranjan Hota, the husband of the petitioner has inter alia observed the following in Paragraphs-6 & 7:-

“6. Our attention has been drawn to a previous order dated 12^th November, 2024 passed by a coordinate Bench while considering the prayer for grant of bail of a co-accused, i.e., Pallavi Mishra @ Pallavi Hota, who happens to be the wife of the appellant. While rejecting the prayer for release on bail, this Court had granted liberty to the said petitioner (Pallavi Mishra) to renew her prayer for bail before the High Court if no substantial progress of the trial is achieved by the end of January, 2025.

7. We are at the end of the year. In our considered view, having regard to the pace of progress of the trial, an early conclusion seems to be remote. Having regard to the long incarceration together with the nature of allegations levelled and the stage of the trial, we are incline