p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ABLAPL No. 7930 of 2026 Raja Bhadra …. Petitioner Mr. S.R. Dash, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Parties Mr. A.K. Pati, ASC Mr. J.P. Patra, Adv.(OPID) CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Order No. ORDER 29.07.2026 02. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the OPID. 2. The Petitioner is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with C.T. Case No.1 of 2018 pending on the file of learned Presiding Officer, Designated Court (under OPID Act), Cuttack, arising out of EOW, Odisha, Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No.1 of 2018 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 420/406/467/468/471/120(B) of IPC read with Section 6 of Orissa Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 2011. p. 2 3. The allegation against the present Petitioner, who is the Managing Director of Vibgyor Group of Companies, is that he has duped gullible investors to make investment on the promise of high return and the instructions submitted to this Court indicates that prima facie about Rs.14 Crores money has been collected through fake schemes like fixed deposit, recurring deposit and MIS. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the matter was agitated before the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court and One Man Committee was formed by the orders of the Calcutta High Court headed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.P. Talukdar and in terms of the finding of the committee, the investors are getting their money. Hence, it is the further submission that though the Petitioner has not been charge sheeted and the co-accused, who were taken to custody, has since been released on bail, the Petitioner may be protected by pre-arrest bail. 5. Learned counsel for the OPID, Mr. Patra, submits that the Petitioner was facing investigation for commission of similar offence in the State of Jharkhand, which in the meanwhile was taken over by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). p. 3 6. Learned counsel for the State places on record the antecedents of the Petitioner, which runs thus; i. Entally PS/DD (West Bengal) Case No.247/2015 U/s.420/120(B)/467/468/471 IPC. ii. Entally PS(West Bengal) Crime No.570 dt. 28.11.2014 U/s.420/406/120(B) IPC iii. Sarsuna PS (West Bengal) Case No.96 dt. 11.09.2015 U/s.409/420/120(B) IPC iv. Entally PS Case (West Bengal) No.236 dt. 15.05.2015 U/s.406/420/120(B) IPC v. Entally PS Case(West Bengal) No.90 dt.16.02.2016 U/s.420/406/120(B) IPC vi. Park Street PS( West Bengal) Case No.131/2016 U/s.420/406/120(B) IPC vii. Entally PS(West Bengal) Case No.151 dt.31.3.2016 U/s.420/ 406/ 120(B)/ 467/ 468/ 471 IPC viii. Entally PS Case No 152 dt.31.03.2016 U/s.420/406/120(B)/467/468/471 IPC ix. Entally PS (West Bengal Case No.166 dt.09.04.2016 U/s.420/ 406/ 120(B)/ 467/ 468/ 471 IPC. x. Capital PS (Bhubaneswar) Case No.235 dt. 23.06.2015 U/s.420/120(B) IPC/Sec 4,5 & 6 of PCMCS Act/ 6 of OPID Act. p. 4 xi. Baripada Town PS Case No. 151 dt. 11.05.2013 U/s.420/120(B)/406 IPC/ Sec 4,5 & 6 of PCMCS (Banning) Act. xii. Bhubaneswar EOW PS Case No. 15 dt. 19.06.2018 U/s.420/406/467/468/471/120(B) IPC Sec 4, 5, 6 of PC&MCS (Banning) Act/6 OPID Act. 7. Learned counsel Mr. Patra, appearing for the OPID refers to communications received from the Joint Secretary to the One Man Committee referred to herein above, which is extracted hereunder; p. 5 8. The same is refuted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner though no material is placed on record. 9. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that none of the investors in Odisha have got back any money. p. 6 10. Taking into account the nature of allegations and the criminal proclivity of the Petitioner, as noted above and the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vrs. Central Bureau of Investigation & another, reported in 2022 (10) SCC 51, wherein, the Apex Court has dealt with economic offence against the State on a different plane, this Court is not persuaded to hold that the Petitioner is entitled to the “exceptional remedy” of pre-arrest bail. 11. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the application for pre-arrest bail. However, in the event the Petitioner surrenders before the learned Court in seisin in the aforesaid case and moves an application for his release on bail, the same shall be considered on its own merit. 12. Accordingly, the ABLAPL stands disposed of. (V. NARASINGH) Judge Santoshi