p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.201 2026 Pradeep Soni @ Pradeep Soni & Petitioner Mr. T.Patnaik, Advocate -versus- State of Orissa & Opposite Party Mr. P.Satapathy, Addl. PP CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER(ORAL) 24.02.2026 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2. This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Cyber Crime PS (CID) PS. Case No. 0013 of 2025 corresponding to CT Case No.658 of 2025 pending in the file of learned SDJM, Bhubaneswar for commission of offences punishable U/Ss. 336(2)(3)/338/340(2)/ 61(2)/3(5)of BNS r/w.Sec.66(C)/66(D)I.T. Act. 3. The gist of allegation appearing against the petitioner is that the informant came in contact with the petitioner in social media and according to the instruction of the petitioner, the informant joined in a Whatsapp group namely <VIP 1V1 Service Team-570= and accordingly, he initially deposited Rs.5 lakhs on 15.01.2025, but subsequently deposited Rs.1,55,66,000/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Five Lakhs p. 2 Sixth Six Thousand) through seven transactions in different bank accounts, however, later on, he was found to have been duped by the petitioner. 4. In the course of hearing, Mr.Tigmanshu Patnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although there appears allegation against the petitioner for duping the informant, but fact remains that an amount of Rs.25 lakhs was credited to the account of the petitioner, but subsequently the said amount was transferred to different accounts within ten minutes without his knowledge and thereby, the petitioner have no knowledge about the fraud and he having not duped anybody, he may kindly be granted bail. 4.1. On the other hand, Mr.P.Satapathy, learned Addl. PP, however, strongly opposes the bail application of the petitioner by contending inter alia that not only the amount has been transacted to the account of the petitioner, but also the informant has been duped with a sum of Rs.1.55 crores and thereby, the petitioner bail application may kindly be rejected. 5. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against the petitioner for committing Cyber fraud and in the process, duping the informant, but fact remains that after due investigation, the petitioner has been taken into custody for duping the petitioner and it is found in the investigation that the informant has been duped for a sum of Rs.1.55 crores. These types of offences are p. 3 rampant in the society right now and one of the offences alleged against the petitioner is for offence U/S. 338 of BNS which prescribes maximum punishment up-to imprisonment for life. In the aforesaid facts and circumstance and taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the offences as alleged against the petitioner vis-à-vis the accusations sought to be brought against him and regard being had to the materials placed on record, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 6. Hence, the bail application of the petitioner stands rejected. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. A copy of this order be immediately communicated to the learned trial Court. (G. Satapathy) Judge kishore