IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

BLAPL NO.4014 of 2025

(In the matter of application under Section 483 of

BNSS, 2023).

Ashish Kumar Jena @ Sidhul … Petitioner

-versus-

State of Orissa … Opposite Party For Petitioner : Mr. B. Mohanty, Advocate For Opposite Party : Mr. T.K. Acharya, Addl. PP

Mr. A. Patra,

Advocate(Informant)

CORAM:

JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:03.09.2025(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 Khandagiri PS Case No.834 of 2024 corresponding to CT Case No.2174 of 2024 pending in the file of learned JMFC-V, Bhubaneswar, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.318(4)/338/336/340(3)/3(5) of BNS, on the main allegation of cheating the informant for a sum of Rs. 1.5 Crores on the pretext of providing a

house-cum-flat together with the land by forging documents.

2. In the course of hearing, Mr. Bana Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner appearing virtually submits that although there is allegation against the Petitioner for swindling away a sum of Rs. 1.5 Crores from the informant on the pretext of supplying a flat, but fact remains that the Petitioner has never cheated the informant and the document which has been annexed to the FIR are some forged documents and the informant by using such forged documents, has manufactured a case against the Petitioner. Mr. Mohanty further submits that at no point of time, the Petitioner has made any agreement with Jogmaya Nanda and shown her house to the Informant to sell away the said house and the Petitioner having detained in custody for a substantial period may kindly be granted bail.

2.1. In opposing the prayer, Mr. T.K. Acharya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, however, argues in vehemence and submits that not only the Petitioner has cheated the informant, but also the manner in which he has deceived the informant by showing a house belonging to Jogmaya Nanda to be provided the Informant is an unacceptable crime, but when investigation was carried out with regard to said house, the grandson of Jogmaya Nanda disclosed that his grandmother had already expired and she had not made any agreement with the Petitioner. Mr. Acharya further submits that the Petitioner being a habitual offender, has five cases to his credit and out of the five cases, four are of similar nature and, therefore, the bail application of the Petitioner may kindly be rejected.

2.2. In echoing the submission of learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Mr. Aviram Patra, learned counsel for the Informant, however, forcefully submits that not only the Petitioner has taken away money through online transfer and some amount in the name of the friends of the Petitioner for purchasing the materials, but also has duped the informant for a sum of Rs. 1.5 Crores and he having involved in other cases, his bail application may kindly be rejected.

3. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, it appears that the Petitioner is not only alleged in this case, but he is allegedly involved in following cases:-

“(i)Nayapalli P.S. Case No.284/2022 (ii) Cyber Crime & Economic Offence UPD BBS PS Case No. 31/2023 (iii) Cyber Crime & Economic Offences UPD BBSR PS Case No. 32/2023 (iv) Cyber Crime & Economic Offences UPD BBSR PS Case No. 33/2023 (v) Khandagiri PS Case No. 228 of 2028”

It is contended by the State that out of these five cases, four are of similar nature. In a very recent decision in Kaushal Singh Vrs. State of Rajasthan; 2025 INSC 871, the Apex Court has been pleased to hold in paragraphs-22 and 23 as under:-

“22. Before parting, we would like to state that, accounting for the criminal antecedents of the accused while considering the bail applications has been the subject matter of concern for Courts across the country. The rules and orders of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, to be specific, Rule 5 of Chapter 1-

A(b) Volume-V specifically provide as below:

“5. Bail applications.- In every applicati