IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.3808 of 2026 Rudraprasad Tripathy …. Petitioner(s) Mr. Amitav Tripathy, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party(s) Mr. Tej Kumar, ASC CORAM: HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI Order No. 01. ORDER 06.05.2026 F.I.R. No. Dated Police Station Case No. and Courts’ Name Sections 47 18.02. 2026 Ainthapali G.R. Case No.388 of 2026, S.D.J.M., Sambalpur 318(4)/317(2) /61(2) of BNS read with Section 66(C)/66(D) of the I.T. Act. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. 3. The Petitioner, being in custody in connection with Ainthapali P.S. Case No.47 dated 18.02.2026, corresponding to G.R. Case No.388 of 2026, pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, registered for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 318(4)/317(2)/61(2) of BNS read Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 07-May-2026 19:17:07 Signature Not Verified with Section 66(C)/66(D) of the I.T. Act, has filed this petition for his release on bail. 4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the S.I. of Police, Ainthapali P.S. lodged a written report before the I.I.C., Ainthapali P.S., alleging therein that, on the basis of a report received from NCRP, he verified the activation of mule accounts in the area and, during such verification, found that the present Petitioner along with others had received proceeds of crime relating to cyber fraud cases. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has been in judicial custody since 19.02.2026 and has no knowledge about the fraud allegedly committed by the fraudsters in relation to the account in question. It is further submitted that, so far as the present Petitioner is concerned, the police have not seized any account belonging to him and, basing solely upon the statement of a co- accused, the Petitioner has been arrested without any substantive material against him. He further contends that, in the meantime, charge-sheet has already been submitted and, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the prosecution evidence. It is also contended that the Petitioner has no criminal antecedents. Accordingly, he prays for release of the Petitioner on bail. 6. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail contending that the Petitioner opened mule accounts in the names of different persons on a commission basis, carried out illegal transactions through such mule accounts and associated himself with cyber fraud activities. He further contends that the Petitioner withdrew money through online transactions after collecting the ATM card numbers and CVV numbers of the mule account holders. Accordingly, he prays for rejection of the bail application. 7. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the nature of accusation, the period of detention of the Petitioner since 19.02.2026, the fact that charge-sheet has already been submitted and absence of any criminal antecedent against the Petitioner, this Court is inclined to allow the prayer for bail. 8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 9. Let the Petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case on such terms and conditions as deemed just and proper by the learned Court in seisin over the matter, including the conditions that: i. the Petitioner shall appear before the learned trial Court on each date fixed; ii. the Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence or try to influence any witness; iii. the Petitioner shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature while on bail. Page 4 of 4 10. Violation of any of the above conditions shall entail cancellation of bail. 11. The BLAPL stands disposed of. 12. Issue urgent certified copy of this Order as per Rules. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Sipun