p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ABLAPL No. 4199 of 2026 1. Bibhuti Bhusan Nanda 2. Patitapaban Swain …. Petitioner(s) Mr. S.C. Mohapatra Sr. Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opp. Party(s) Mr. D. Mohanty, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Order No. ORDER 01.05.2026 01. 1. The FIR dated 01.05.2015 in Jarapada P.S. Case No. 70 of 2015 was registered corresponding to G.R. Case No.604 of 2015 for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 420 of IPC read with Section 4 and 5 of Prize Chits Money Circulation Scheme Banning Act, 1978 pending in the court of JMFC, Chhendipada, making following allegations:- “The informant, namely, Jiban Sahoo filed a written report alleging therein that one Sashmita Pradhan received cash showing herself as agent of one Organization namely Awareness Nirapada Sanchaya and Sarala Runa Samabaya. The Office of the above Organization has been operating at Tukuda Chhaka. The agent of the above Organization Mrs.Sashmita Pradhan convinced that if they will deposit the p. 2 money then they will be more benefitted for which the informant along with Prasanta Sahoo, Srikanta Sahoo and others were deposited the money as yet. In the end of year 2010, suddenly closed the deposits as well as withdrawal and closed the office. Since 5 to 6 months, the Office of the Organization has not been opened. On 22.02.2011 the informant along with others informed the matter before the I.I.C., Jarapada Police Station, the I.I.C., Japarada settled the matter between the informant and others as well as the staff of the organization. The Agent of the Organization gave assurance to the depositors that they will return their money but due to non-refund of money, the informant along with others filed an application before the Collector, Angul but till date no fruitful result has been yielded and the informant and other depositors have not returned their money of Rs.2,40,000/-.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on instruction from the petitioners, submits that, except the present bail application, no other bail application of the petitioners is pending in any other Court relating to the aforesaid F.I.R. 3. During investigation, since the petitioners were absconded, the I.O. of the present case moved an application before the court below for issuance of NBW. The trial court rejected the prayer of the I.O. vide order dated 05.12.2025 and while rejecting the prayer of the I.O. for issuance of NBW against the petitioners the trial court specifically recorded that there is nothing on the case dairy to show that the accused persons have been examined by the I.O. There p. 3 is no investigation has been conducted by the I.O. to determine whether the said accused persons are employed outside their village or not. Besides that the I.O. has not disclosed any reasons as to why the arrest of the accused persons are essential and the purpose of their arrest would serve in the investigation of the case. Hence, the prayer of the I.O. for issuance of NBW has been rejected. At this stage, the petitioners came to know regarding the development of the case, hence they apprehend their arrest. Therefore, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present application. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents. 5. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. 6. Regard being had to the nature of allegation and gravity of offence, I am inclined to grant the petitioners anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event the Petitioners are arrested, they shall be released on bail by the Arresting Officer, subject to verification of criminal antecedent of similar nature. The release of the Petitioners shall also be subject to the condition that they shall cooperate with the investigation and shall appear before the I.O. as and when their presence is required by the I.O. for the p. 4 purpose of investigation; they shall not indulge in similar criminal offences while on bail; they shall not threaten/harass/terrorize the informant in any manner whatsoever while on bail; and they shall appear before the trial court on each and every date of posting of the case, if not presented by sufficient cause. Violation of any of the conditions shall entail cancellation of bail. 7. The ABLAPL is accordingly disposed of. (S.S. Mishra) Judge Ashok MOHAPATRA