p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ABLAPL No. 11722 of 2024 Sapan Kumar Sethi …. Petitioner Mr. S.K. Dash, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. C.R. Swain, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Order No. ORDER 15.04.2025 05. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The Petitioner is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with G.R. Case No.621 of 2024 pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., K.S. Nagar, arising out of Kabisuryanagar P.S. Case No.631 of 2024 for commission of offences punishable under Section 318(4) of BNS. 3. The allegations against the Petitioner is that he used the accounts details such as Adhar card and bank passbooks of the victims and in the process duped them of money. 4. On instruction, learned counsel for the State submits that during the investigation it has come to the fore that the following victims have been duped. “(i) Geeta Sethi p. 2 (ii) Pinki Behera (iii) Runu Behera (iv) Sanju Sethi (v) Sundari Majhi (vi) Ranjit Behera (vii) Jhili Majhi (viii) Kuni Majhi” 5. It is submitted that investigation is continuing and he also refers to the instruction of the I.O. that in spite of repeated notices, the Petitioner is not cooperating. The same is extracted hereunder:- “During investigation, the IO noticed to Sapan Kumar Sethi, S/o-Bhikari Sethi of vill- Barasara, PS-Kabisuryanagar, Dist-Ganjam on dt 29.03.2025 to attend before him on 30.03.2025 and cooperate in investigation but he did not attend and cooperate him in investigation. As Sapan Kumar Sethi was absent in his house the notice have been served to Sapan Sethi'’ brother Manoj Sethi on 29.03.2025 by C/573 Satrughan Behera. Further on 03.04.2025 IO of the case SI T. Mahananda noticed to Sapan Kumar Sethi to attend before him on 09.04.2025 and cooperate in investigation but he did not co- operate him in investigation. The notice have been served to Sapan Sethi’s nephew Bhagaban Sethi by C/300 Bijay Kumar Behera, p. 3 as Sapan Kumar Sethi was absent in his house.” 6. The instruction received by the learned counsel for the State is also taken on record. 7. In view of the nature of allegations and the conduct of the Petitioner, this Court is not inclined to entertain the ABLAPL. 8. Accordingly, the ABLAPL stands disposed of. 9. Interim order stands vacated. (V. NARASINGH) Judge Ayesha