CRLA No.470 of 2026 p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No.470 of 2026 (In the matter of application U/S.14-(A)(2) of SC & ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989. Ranjit Kumar Padhy @ Mili …. Appellant -versus- State of Odisha & Another …. Respondents For Appellant : Mr. D. Panda, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. J.P. Patra, OPID Counsel CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY F DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:06.07.2026(ORAL) G. Satapathy, J. 1. This criminal appeal in nature of Section 14-A of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 together with amendment Act, 2016 (in short, “the Act”) is directed against the impugned order dated 17.02.2026 passed in GR Case No.02 of 2023 by which the learned PO, Designated under OPID Act, Berhampur, Ganjam, has refused to grant bail to the appellant in connection CRLA No.470 of 2026 p. 2 with Gunupur PS Case No.78 of 2023 being charge- sheeted for commission of offence punishable U/Ss.420/120-B/406 r/w Sec.3(2)(va) of SC and ST (PoA) Act. 2. The allegation against the appellant as appears from the record is that he along with co- accused persons allured the tribal villagers to take loan from different banks and hand it over to co- accused Debashish Mishra so as to enable him to open different facility centers, such as amenities centers for employment of such innocent villagers and he would also repay the loan of the innocent villagers. On the aforesaid assurance & allurement, co-accused Debashis Mishra obtained 60Lakhs from 42 tribal villagers who had secured this amount through loan from different banks on the instigation of the present appellant and co-accused persons and subsequently, they were cheated by the appellant and others for the aforesaid amount. CRLA No.470 of 2026 p. 3 3. In the course of hearing, Mr. Devashis Panda, learned counsel for the appellant submits that all the allegation is directed against co-accused Debashis Mishra, but the present appellant has no role either in cheating the villagers or helping the co- accused in cheating them, rather he being a bona fide neighbor of principal accused- Debashis Mishra has some time undertaken to repay the money taken by the principal accused, however, he has absolutely got no role in the matter and he having voluntarily surrendered in the Court on 17.02.2026, his application for grant of bail by this appeal may kindly be considered favorably. Mr. Panda further submits that co-accused Rashmirani Mohapatra and Surendra Mishra who are the wife and father of the principal accused have already been admitted to bail, but the present appellant has absolutely no role in this case and thereby, he may kindly be granted bail. 3.1. In opposing such prayer for bail, Mr. J.P. Patra, learned counsel for OPID submits that not only the appellant has allured the innocent tribal villagers, CRLA No.470 of 2026 p. 4 but also he has actively assisted the co-accused in collecting the money for a sum of Rs.60Lakhs which has been secured by the poor innocent villagers from the bank as loan and right now they are suffering when the amount is not repaid to the banks and therefore, the appellant having four criminal antecedents and he having threatened the innocent villagers thereby, the appellant may not be released on bail. None appears for the informant despite being duly informed as apprised by the learned State counsel. 4. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, it appears that FIR has been lodged against the present appellant and three others, but co-accused Rashmirani Mohapatra and Surendra Mishra has admittedly been granted bail, but the appellant is in custody since 17.02.2026. Besides, the main allegation of collecting the money from the innocent tribal villagers is directed against Debashish Mishra. The FIR averments reveals that the present appellant had CRLA No.470 of 2026 p. 5 some time undertaken for Debashish Mishra to repay the amount, but co-accused Debashish Mishra has allegedly collected the money from the tribal villagers and right now charge-sheet has already been submitted, but trial is yet to commence. No doubt, the appellant is having some criminal antecedents as informed by the learned OPID counsel, but such criminal antecedents reported against the appellant relates to some cases registered against him prior to the year 2015. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the offences as alleged against the appellant vis-à-vis the accusation sought to be brought against him and regard being had to the materials placed on record and keeping in view the other circumstances on record in entirety including the inherent right of the accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty at the trial and keeping in view the main allegation being directed against co- accused Debashish Mishra, this Court without CRLA No.470 of 2026 p. 6 expressing any view on merit admits the appellant to bail. 5. Hence, the CRLA stands allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside. Consequently, the appellant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one solvent surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin of the case on such terms and conditions as deem fit and proper by it. 6. Accordingly, the CRLA stands disposed of. A copy of this order be immediately communicated to the concerned Court. (G. Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 06th day of July, 2026/Jayakrushna