IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ABLAPL No. 4533 of 2025 Samsura Begum …. Petitioner Mr. J. Sahoo, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. R.B. Dash, ASC Mr. L. Mishra, Advocate (Informant) ABLAPL No. 3683 of 2025 Saroj Kumar Nayak …. Petitioner Mr. A.P. Das, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. R.B. Dash, ASC Mr. P.K. Bhuyan, Advocate (Informant) CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Order No. ORDER 02.05.2025 01. 1. Learned counsel, Mr. L. Mishra & associates have entered appearance on behalf of Informant by filing Vakalatnama. The same is taken on record. Names of Mr. L. Mishra & associates be reflected in the file, cause list and web portal of this Court. 2. Since both the ABLAPLs relate to the same FIR (Pipili P.S. Case No.124 of 2025), they are heard together on the consent of the parties and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Informant. 4. The Petitioners are seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with G.R. Case No.195 of 2025 pending on the file of learned JMFC, Pipili arising out of Pipili P.S. Case No.124 of 2025 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of BNS. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that the allegations are more or less based on documentary evidence. Hence, custodial interrogation of the Petitioners is not necessary. 6. It is further submitted that the accusation so far as Petitioners are concerned they are primarily based on co-accused statement. Hence, no credence should be attached to the same. 7. Learned counsel submits that the Petitioner (Samsura Begum) in ABLAPL No.4533 of 2025 is a lady. Hence, that should also weigh with this Court. 8. Learned counsel for the State as well as informant oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail. 9. This Court perused the instruction submitted by the learned State counsel which states that the Petitioner (Samsura Begum) in ABLAPL No.4533 of 2025 has identified herself as one Snehalata Swain and with the active connivance with the Petitioner (Saroj Kumar Nayak) in ABLAPL No.3683 of 2025 she opened an account in SBI, Bharatipur Branch, Pipili vide account No.43548756293 and an amount of Rs.1,02,72,885/- has been transferred to the said account. And, on instruction, learned counsel for the State submits that the account was operated by accused Kelu Charan Behera @ Chittaranjan Pattanaik and Saroj Nayak, who is the Petitioner in ABLAPL No.3683 of 2025. The said instruction is taken on record. 10. Taking note of the same and keeping in view that this is an economic offence and in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Devinder Kumar Bansal vs. State of Punjab, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 488, this Court is not inclined to entertain the ABLAPL. 11. Accordingly, the ABLAPLs stand disposed of. U.C.C. as per rules. (V. NARASINGH) Judge Ayesha