p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 2731 of 2026 Dhiren Kumar Behera @ Tukuna …. Petitioner Mr. J. Katikia, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. A. K. Nayak, Advocate (OPID) CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Order No. ORDER 01.05.2026 02. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The Petitioner is an accused in G.R. Case No.02 of 2018 pending on the file of learned Presiding Officer, Designated Court under OPID Act-cum-ADJ, Berhamur, Ganjam arising out of Kabisuryanagar P.S Case No.20 of 2018, for commission of the offence alleged under Sections 420/ 467/ 468/ 471/406/120-B/34 of IPC read with Section 4/5/6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes(Banning) Act, 1978 and Section 6 of the Odisha Protection Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 2011. 3. Learned counsel, on instruction, submits that except the present BLAPL, no other bail application of p. 2 the Petitioner relating to the aforementioned P.S. Case is pending in any other Court. 4. Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for bail U/s.483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) by the learned Presiding Officer designated under OPID Act, Berhampur, Ganjam by order dated 06.03.2026 in the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the Petitioner is in custody since 03.03.2026 and the allegation against him that he in connivance with the Director, CMD of Kalikata Weir Industries Limited have lured gullible investors for higher returns and collected huge amount of money. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the Petitioner is not a named accused. He is merely an agent, who was acting as per the direction of the higher UPs just to earn his livelihood. Hence, no mens rea can be attached to his action. 6. Learned counsel for the OPID opposes the prayer for bail referring to the statements on record and submits that the company being admittedly from the outside the Petitioner was the face of the company in the State of Odisha and taking advantage of his acquittance with locals, he persuaded them to make the deposits. Since the investigation is at a p. 3 nascent stage, the Petitioner ought not to be released on bail. 7. This Court perused the materials on record as well as the statements and in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court wherein economic offences affecting the society at large have been dealt with on a different plane in the case of the Satender Kumar Antil vrs. Central Bureau of Investigation & another, (2022) 10 SCC 51. 8. This Court is not inclined to entertain the bail application of the Petitioner, at this stage. 9. Liberty is granted to the Petitioner to renew his prayer at a later stage, if so, advised. 10. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. (V. NARASINGH) Judge Jina