IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

BLAPL No.10322 of 2025

(In the matter of application under Section 483 of the

BNSS).

Kusha @ Ramesh Chandra … Petitioner

Majhi

-versus-

State of Odisha … Opposite Party For Petitioner : Mr. B. Mohapatra, Advocate

For Opposite Party : Mr. C. Mohanty, Addl. PP

Mr. S. Palit, Sr. Advocate

(informant)

CORAM:

JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

DATE OF HEARING & DATE OF JUDGMENT:12.01.2026 (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 Special Crime Unit PS Case No.05 of 2025 corresponding to CT Case No.810 of 2025 pending in the file of learned JMFC-III, Bhubaneswar for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.420/ 465/

468/ 471/ 474/ 34 of IPC.

2. The facts relevant for disposal of this bail application are that the informant is the Managing

Director (MD) of M/S. Stairway Gold & Diamond Pvt. Ltd. and M/S. Stairway Developers Pvt. Ltd. and he came in contact with the petitioner and his wife Anisha Subudhi, who by showing forged authorization letters of RBI to deal with gold business allured the informant to invest in their business for high returns and accordingly, they managed to take investment/loan from the informant for a crores of rupees in different dates. In the process, the petitioner and wife cheated the informant for a sum of Rs.5.6Crore, which is the outstanding due on them after return of certain amount by showing forged documents.

3. In the course of hearing Mr. Bidyalok Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner while not disputing about registration of cases against the petitioner submits that the matter relates to documentary transaction and thereby, once the petitioner is released on bail, he can repay the amount in terms of the contractual agreement, but on the other hand Mr. Subir Palit, learned Sr. counsel by taking this Court through the materials placed on record submits that the manner in which the petitioner had taken the loan/investment from the informant only to cheat him speaks in volume, which is evident from the intention of the petitioner from the very beginning. Mr. Palit further submits that the petitioner has outstanding due of Rs.5.6Crores to the informant, but he has refused to pay the same for quite some time for which the informant has no other option to take recourse of criminal action against the petitioner, but the petitioner being found involved in eight cases of similar nature has never the intention to repay the amount to the informant and he has only the intention to cheat the informant & others for Crores of rupees by showing forged documents and therefore, the bail application of the petitioner may kindly be rejected.

3.1 On the other hand, Mr. C. Mohanty, learned Addl. PP by highlighting the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, prays to reject the bail application of the petitioner.

4. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against the petitioner for duping the informant and it is alleged that the petitioner has an outstanding dues of Rs.5.6Crores to the informant. It is also not disputed that the petitioner is further involved in eight cases, however, it is acknowledged by learned counsel for the petitioner that all the cases are similar nature, but the petitioner has been remanded in those cases after lodging of this case. The allegation against the petitioner discloses commission of economic offence which is right now rampant in the society, but it should be dealt with sternly since the economic offence not only ruins the aggrieved person, but it also has the impact on the economic stability of the society, which somehow affects the economic growth of the country. No doubt the petitioner has been detained in custody for some time just few months, however, his alleged involvement in other cases writ large.

5. Bail as it is understood is transfer of custody of the accused person from law to surety, but grant or refusal of bail to the accused fo