p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.9788 of 2025 Ratanlal Paira … Petitioner Mr.B.Mohapatra, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha … Opposite Party Mr. R.B.Mishra, Addl. PP CORAM:JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER(ORAL) 21.04.2026 07. 1. This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Cyber Crime & Economic Offence Balasore PS Case No.35 of 2025 corresponding to CT Case No.407 of 2025 pending in the file of learned JMFC, Jaleswar for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.316(2)/318(4)/319(2)/3(5) of BNS & Sec. 66(D) of IT Act. 2. The allegation as divulged from the FIR discloses that the informant Subrat Kumar Ghosh was doing his business by having one Online Computer Centre(CSC) with one Tata Indicash and Vakrangee White Level ATM Machine in his shop, but the petitioner who was stated to be running one Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Corporate Agency Office near to the shop of the informant on franchise basis along with his son co-accused persuaded and obtained the account details of the informant, such as account number, IFSC code for deposit of money in such account with return of 1% basis for delivery of amount to the petitioner and in the process, the petitioner managed to deposit different amounts on different dates and taking back such amount with 1% commission to the informant, however, on one day, the informant found his bank account maintained at p. 2 IDBI bank, Axis bank and his wife’s bank account at IOB could not be operated due to involvement of such account in financial fraud. On the FIR of the informant, Cyber Crime & Economic Offence Balasore PS Case No.35 of 2025 was registered and in the course of investigation, it was found that the petitioner and his son have allegedly committed financial fraud of Rs.1,93,00,762/- from one Ajay Palekar and Rs.23,30,022/- from Jayantilal Saha of Mumbai which money they had received and transacted and later, it was ascertained that the bank accounts of the petitioner and his wife were credited with Rs.1,12,21,130/-, but subsequently transacted. On conclusion of investigation, accordingly charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner and other co-accused persons. 3. In the course of hearing of bail application, Mr.Bidyalok Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a sum of Rs.52,00,000/- has been freezed in this case and, therefore, the allegation of fraud, if taken into consideration, the amount freezed can be used & mitigated against the fraud amount. Further, Mr. Mohapatra submits that the petitioner is in custody since long, but charge-sheet having already been submitted, there would be hardly any requirement of the petitioner in custody and, therefore, the bail application of the petitioner may kindly be allowed. 3.1. On the other hand, Mr. R.B.Mishra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor prays to reject the bail application of the petitioner by highlighting the manner in which the fraud has been committed and the amount involved in this case. Page 3 of 3 4. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears serious allegation against the petitioner for committing online financial fraud and it is allegedly unearthed in the investigation that a sum of Rs.1,12,21,130/- has been credited to the account of the informant, who had allegedly transacted the same to the accounts of the petitioner and some other accounts. The materials on record does not limit the allegation against the petitioner for this amount only, but he is allegedly found involved in Cyber Police Station West Region, Mumbai Case No.221 of 2025 for committing financial fraud for a sum of Rs.1,93,00,762/- from one Ajay Palekar. Besides, there appears allegation against the petitioner for getting different amount withdrawn through the account of the informant and his wife and transacting the same in the name of his wife (the wife of the petitioner namely Kabita Patra). In the aforesaid facts and circumstance and taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the offences as alleged against the petitioner vis-à-vis the accusations sought to be brought against him and the manner in which online financial fraud has allegedly being committed by the petitioner and his son together with the quantum of fraud amount involved in this case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 5. Hence, the bail application of the petitioner stands rejected. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. A copy of this order be immediately communicated to the learned trial Court. (G. Satapathy) Judge kishore