IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

BLAPL No.6770 of 2025

(In the matter of application under Section 483 of the

BNSS).

Sambit Panda … Petitioner

-versus-

State of Odisha … Opposite Party For Petitioner : Mr. Y. Das, Sr. Advocate

along with Mr. N.C. Mohanty,

Advocate

For Opposite Party : Mr. M.K. Mohanty, Addl. PP

Mr. S.S. Bhuyan, Advocate

(informant)

CORAM:

JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

DATE OF HEARING & DATE OF JUDGMENT:02.09.2025 (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 Infocity P.S. Case No.440 of 2024 corresponding to 1 C.C. Case No.6812 of 2024 (C.T. Case No.1608 of 2024) pending in the file of learned J.M.F.C.-II (Cog. Taking), Bhubaneswar, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.316(2)/ 324(5)/ 318(4)/ 338/

336(3)/340(2)/351(2) of BNS, on main the allegation of cheating the informant by not providing as agreed the luxury cars by taking a sum of Rs.1,08,50,000/-.

2. In the course of hearing, Mr. Yasobant Das, learned Senior Counsel, who is being assisted by Mr. Nirmal Chandra Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although it is alleged that the petitioner has received Rs.1,08,50,000/- to supply cars, but since the petitioner was not the real supplier of luxury cars, he transferred the money to one Usharani Barik to supply the same, but unfortunately luxury cars could not be supplied to the informant and even if the materials on record are taken into consideration, it would only be a case of breach of contract which does not give rise to any criminal action/liabilities, but notwithstanding to such fact, the complainant has managed to initiate a criminal case by filing a complaint and sending it to the Police for registration. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 09.06.2025 and charge sheet has already been submitted in this case, but fact remains that all the offences alleged against the petitioner are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, rather the same is triable by Magistrate First Class and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vrs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2022) 10 SCC 51, the petitioner may kindly be granted bail.

2.1. In opposing the prayer for bail, Mr. Sourav Suman Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for the informant, however, strongly argues and submits that not only the petitioner is involved in this case, but also he is involved in another case and since the petitioner has prima facie committed a financial fraud, he should not be granted bail and the informant is unaware of the fact as to whether the petitioner has transferred the money to co-accused or not, but in fact the petitioner has cheated the informant by not supplying the car after receiving the Rs.1,08,50,000/-. It is further submitted that although there is a financial fraud committed by the petitioner, but the informant is only concerned about refund of his hard-earned money and in case the petitioner delivers the amount, the informant would not have any serious objection for grant of bail to the petitioner.

2.2. In echoing the submission of the learned counsel for the informant, Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Addl. PP submits slightly different by arguing that the petitioner has transferred a sum of Rs.90,00,000/- to the co-accused Usharani Barik, who is yet to be apprehended and charge sheet has already been submitted by keeping the investigation open for other action and, therefore, at this stage granting bail would allow the petitioner to interfere with the investigation and witnesses and, therefore, the petitioner may not kindly be granted bail.

3. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears some allegations against the petitioner for receiving certain amount to deliver some luxury cars, but it is unearthed in the investigation that the petitioner has allegedly transferred a sum of Rs.90,00,000/- to co-

accused namely Usharani Barik. Be that as i