BLAPL Nos.12090 & 13016 of 2025 p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL Nos.12090 & 13016 of 2025 (In the matter of application under Section 483 of the BNSS). Sunil Kumar Ray (In BLAPL No. 12090 of 2025) Himansu Sekhar Behura (In BLAPL No. 13016 of 2025) … Petitioners -versus- State of Odisha … Opposite Party For Petitioners : Mr. B.K.Sharma,Sr. Advocate along with Mr.Rudra Sahoo, Advocate (In BLAPL No. 12090 of 2025) Mr. S.K.Singh, Advocate (In BLAPL No. 13016 of 2025) For Opposite Party : Mr. S.C.Pradhan, Addl. PP CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY DATE OF HEARING & DATE OF JUDGMENT:18.02.2026(ORAL ) G. Satapathy, J. 1. Since these two bail applications arise out of one and same case record, the same are heard together and disposed of by this common order with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. These are two applications U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with Economic Offence Wing, Bhubaneswar PS Case No.15 of BLAPL Nos.12090 & 13016 of 2025 p. 2 2025 corresponding to CT Case No.18 of 2025 for being charge sheeted for commission of offences punishable U/Ss. 420/467/468/471/120-B of the IPC read with Sec. 66(D) of IT Act, 2000 pending in the Court of learned Presiding Officer, Designated Court under OPID Act, Cuttack. 3. The allegation against the petitioners are that they in connivance with each other made false representation to the informant and some others for having contacts in high levels and accordingly, persuaded the informant and others to invest money in their firm by showing forged documents on the assurance of high returns and accordingly, the informant invested a sum of Rs.85/- lakhs, but during the course of investigation, it is learnt that not only the informant was cheated in this manner, but also others namely, Ashish Kumar Sahoo, Aditya Ranjan Panda, Hrushikesh Dash, Arun Parija, Shradhanjali Nayak and Sunita Rout to the tune of around Rs.1,99,55,000/-. On this incident, an FIR was registered vide EOW Bhubaneswar PS Case No. 15 of 2025 which BLAPL Nos.12090 & 13016 of 2025 p. 3 culminated in submission of charge sheet for commission of offence punishable U/Ss. 420/467/468/471/120-B of the IPC read with Sec. 66(D) of IT Act, 2000, however, the petitioners being found to be primafacie involved in this case were taken into custody, but after unsuccessfully approaching the concerned Court for securing their liberty, the petitioners are before this Court in these bail applications. 4. In the course of hearing, Mr.Bigyan Kumar Sharma, learned Senior Counsel who is being assisted by Rudra Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No. 12090 of 2025 submits that there is no role in fact attributed to the petitioner-Sunil Kumar Ray, rather he being an employee of the firm has refunded a sum of Rs.15/- lakhs to the informant and he having not done anything to infer the offence of cheating or any other offences, he may kindly be granted bail. Mr.Sharma further submits that on a careful scrutiny of materials placed on record, the intention to cheat from the very inception is lacking against the petitioner and thereby, no BLAPL Nos.12090 & 13016 of 2025 p. 4 offence being made out against the petitioner, he may kindly be granted bail. 4.1. Mr.Sudeepta Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No. 13016 of 2025 submits more or less similar to Mr.Sharma, but he specifically submits that the petitioner-Himansu Sekhar Behura has refunded an amount of Rs.55/-lakhs to different investors and he having no intention to cheat anybody, his bail application may kindly be considered positively, more particularly when charge sheet has already been submitted. 4.2. On the other hand, Mr.S.C.Pradhan, learned Addl. PP by producing the written instruction received from Addl. SP, EOW, Bhubaneswar submits that not only the petitioner-Sunil Kumar Ray has cheated the informant, but also has duped many other innocent investors and that apart, the petitioner-Himansu Sekhar Behura is having a criminal antecedent of similar nature in Keonjhar PS Case No. 226 of 2023 and the petitioners having found to be involved in this case for not only duping the informant, but also the others by forging documents, their bail applications may kindly be rejected. BLAPL Nos.12090 & 13016 of 2025 p. 5 5. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against the Petitioners for making false representation to the informant and others by showing forged documents and giving confidence to them for having contacts with high level officials and soliciting investment from them, but it is unearthed in the course of investigation that the allegation against the petitioners is not only confined to the investment of the informant, but also the investment of others and it is stated in the written instruction that the petitioners had duped several peoples and the outstanding amount against the petitioners has swelled up to Rs.3,51,24,404/-. The aforesaid investment alleged to have been taken from the informant and others on the assurance of high returns @4% per month. In the aforesaid facts and circumstance and taking into account the nature and gravity of the offences as alleged against the petitioners vis-à-vis the accusations sought to be brought against them and out of the offence alleged against the petitioners, the offence U/s. 467 of IPC being punishable with imprisonment up to life and taking into BLAPL Nos.12090 & 13016 of 2025 p. 6 account the other circumstances on record in entirety, this Court does not consider it proper to grant bail to the petitioner Sunil Kumar Ray & Himansu Sekhar Behura at this stage, more particularly when the informant and other investors are yet to be examined. Hence, the bail applications of these petitioners stand rejected. Accordingly, these BLAPL Nos. 12090 & 13016 of 2025 stand disposed of. (G. Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the day of 18th February, 2026/Kishore