BLAPL Nos.7068, 8167 & 8283 of 2025 Page 1 of 15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

BLAPL Nos.7068, 8167 & 8283 of 2025

(In the matter of application under Section 483 of the

BNSS

).

Kelu Charan Behera @ Kalu @

Chittaranjan Pattanaik

… Petitioner

-versus-

State of Odisha … Opposite Party

For Petitioner : Mr. B. Nayak, Advocate

For Opposite Party : Mr. T.K. Acharya, Addl. PP

Ms. S. Patnaik,

Advocate(Informant)

CORAM:

JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

DATE OF HEARING : 03.02.2026

DATE OF JUDGMENT : 13.02.2026

G. Satapathy, J.

1. Since the Petitioner herein is an accused in all

the three criminal cases of similar nature in Pipili PS Case

Nos. 122 of 2025, 123 of 2025 & 124 of 2025 and the

allegation in all those three cases disclose a simi lar

pattern of transaction with the Petitioner being a common

link, all these three bail applications are heard together

and disposed of by this common order with the consent of

the learned counsel for the parties.

BLAPL Nos.7068, 8167 & 8283 of 2025 Page 2 of 15

2. The Petitioner in these three bail applications

U/S.483 of BNSS seeks for grant of bail in connecti on

with Pipili PS Case No.122 of 2025 corresponding to GR

Case No.193 of 2025;Pipili PS Case No. 123 of 2025

corresponding to GR Case No. 194 of 2025;and Pipili PS

Case No. 124 of 2025 corresponding to GR Case No.19 5

of 2025 being charge sheeted for commission of offences

punishable U/Ss. 336(2)/ 336(3)/ 338/ 339/ 342/

340(2)/ 319(2)/ 318(4)/ 316(2)/ 61(2)/3(5) of BNS

pending in the Court of learned JMFC, Pipili.

3. Facts in precise are that in BLAPL No. 8167 of

2025 which arises out of Pipili PS Case No. 122 of 2025,

the informant Pradip Kumar Beuria alleged that acting on

the inducement of the Petitioner, he agreed to purchase a

piece of land at Khanhapur Mouza belonging to one

Ramachandra Pradhan and others and accordingly,

settled the amount on 13.11.2024 with payment of

advance and it was agreed upon that the subsequent

installment would be transacted through bank transfer on

the assurance of registration of the sale deed on

18.01.2025, but even after receiving a sum of Rs.

BLAPL Nos.7068, 8167 & 8283 of 2025 Page 3 of 15

2,05,00,000(Rupees Two Crores Five Lakhs) & some od d

amount through admitted bank transaction, the Petitioner

did not cooperate for registration of the sale deed which

eventually led to registration of FIR in Pipili PS Case No.

122 of 2025. Similarly, in BLAPL No. 8283 of 2025 which

arises out of Pipili PS Case No. 123 of 2025 corresponding

to GR Case No. 194 of 2025, the same informant name ly

Pradip Kumar Beuria has alleged that on the inducem ent

of the Petitioner, he agreed to purchase a parcel of land

at the same Mouza belonging to one Jagu Pradhan and

paid advance money and further installment between

November, 2024 and January, 2025, totally more than

Rs.50,00,000/-(Rupees Fifty Lakhs), but the land wa s

never registered despite receipt of the considerati on

amount. More or less is the same allegation in BLAPL No.

7068 of 2025 arising out of Pipili PS Case No. 124 of

2025 corresponding to GR Case No.195 of 2025, where in

the informant alleged that in the month of November ,

2024, the Petitioner induced him to purchase a land

situated at Mouza Khanhapur by showing forged

documents and introducing him by impersonating a

BLAPL Nos.7068, 8167 & 8283 of 2025 Page 4 of 15

person as land owner Kelu Charan Majhi who had died

long ago and pursuant to which, the informant paid of Rs.

5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) in cash and Rs.

5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) through bank transfer on

13.11.2024 followed by further bank transfer throug h

RTGs for sum of Rs. 38,00,000/-(Rupees Thirty Eight

Lakhs) and Rs. 35,85,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakh

Eighty Five Thousand) on 16.01.2025 on the assuranc e

that sale deed would be registered on 17.01.2025,

however, the Petitioner did not register the sale deed.

The investigation in all the three cases resulted i n

submission of charge sheet for the offences as indicated

supra.

3.1. It is, however, alleged by the prosecution

that the Petitioner acted as an intermediary from the side

of the land owner and facilitated transaction by inducing

the informants to part with substantial sum of money, but

did not ensure execution of sale deed giving rise t o

allegation of cheating, criminal breach of trust and allied

offences by forging documents. Pursuant to the FIRs &

finding complicity, the Petitioner was taken into custody

BLAPL Nos.7068, 8167 & 8283 of 2025 Page 5 of 15

in all these cases and after being unsuccessful in securing

his liberty before the learned District Court is before this

Court in these three bail applications.

4. In the course of hearing, Mr. Biswajit Nayak,

learned counsel for the Petitioner appearing all th ese

three bail applications submits that the allegation against

the Petitioner are motivated and concocted, but the

Petitioner has neither any intention to cheat nor has he

cheated anybody, rather he being a broker has

introduced the land owner to the informants and thereby,

he having no mensrea, all the allegation brought against

the Petitioner are false, however, the Petitioner is a

Metastatic Cancer Patient and he is in custody since long

and thereby, the Petitioner may kindly be granted bail on

that score. Further, Mr. Nayak submits that since t he

Petitioner is suffering from Stage-IV Metastatic Cancer

and undergoing Immuno Therapy in Utkal Cancer Care

and he having been granted interim on two spells, b ut

not misusing such liberty in any manner is entitled to bail

and the Petitioner has fixed place of abode and in the

circumstance, he cannot be considered to avoid the trial

BLAPL Nos.7068, 8167 & 8283 of 2025 Page 6 of 15

in future and, therefore, the Petitioner may kindly be

granted bail on any conditions. It is also submitted by Mr.

Nayak that the allegation leveled against the Petitioner is

for financial irregularities of Rs. 3.5 Crores, but the Police

by way of recovery and freezing the account of the

Petitioner has almost all secured an amount of Rs.

1,92,43,580/- and, therefore, there would not be an y

impediment to grant bail to the Petitioner. On thes e

submissions, Mr. Nayak prays to grant bail to the

Petitioner.

4.1. On the other hand, Ms. Shreya Pattnaik, learned

counsel for the Informant, however, taking this Cou rt

through the facts involved in all these three cases ,

submits that the Petitioner not only is the prime accused,

but also he has induced the informants to part with the

money for the purpose of registration of sale deed, but

the land having been recorded in the name of dead

person in one case, the intention of the Petitioner is

palpable from the very beginning to cheat the informant

therein and the Petitioner having swindled a sum of Rs.

3.5 Crores of the informants only to cheat them by

BLAPL Nos.7068, 8167 & 8283 of 2025 Page 7 of 15

producing forged documents with assurance for

registration of sale deed, which was never done, th e

Petitioner, therefore, should not be granted bail. Mrs.

Pattnaik further submits that the Petitioner had in fact

dishonestly received a sum of Rs. 2.56 Crores throu gh

RTGs from the informant Pradip Kumar Beuria, but he has

only intention to cheat and thereby, he has never e ver

tried for registration of sale deed of the land nor returned

the money received from the informants and, therefo re,

the Petitioner being the prime accused of cheating by way

of forgery in this case, his bail application may kindly be

rejected.

4.2. In addition, Mr. T.K. Acharya, learned Addl.

Public Prosecutor, however, by placing the written

instruction received from the IIC Pipili PS submits that

out of the alleged financial fraud of Rs. 3.5 Crores , an

amount of Rs. 35,66,000/- has been recovered and left in

the zima of the complainant, but an amount of Rs.

84,82,448/- has been freezed by the Axis Bank on

requisition of the Police and one Max Life Insurance Policy

for an amount of Rs. 50,36,900/- has also been free zed

BLAPL Nos.7068, 8167 & 8283 of 2025 Page 8 of 15

and these documents go a long way to say that the

Petitioner has intention to cheat and thereby, he despite

knowing the land belonging to a dead person in one case

has introduced fictitious person as a land owner to the

informant in that case and on the assurance of gett ing

the sale deed executed, the Petitioner has swindled Rs.

3.5 Crores from the informants and he, thereby, the

principal accused, his bail application may kindly be

rejected.

5. After having considered the rival submissions

upon perusal of record, before dwelling upon the ba il

applications on merit, this Court emphasizes that t he

statutory provision of bail confers wide discretion on the

Court either to grant or refuse bail to the applicant, but

such exercise of discretion should not be arbitrary or

dehors the basis principles laid down by different

constitutional of Courts in a plethora of decisions. The

broad parameters under which discretion has to be

considered are based on the following factors:-

“(i) Whether there is prima facie or reasonable

ground to believe that the accused has

committed the offence;

BLAPL Nos.7068, 8167 & 8283 of 2025 Page 9 of 15

(ii) Nature and gravity of the accusations;

(iii) Severity of the punishment in the event of

conviction;

(iv)Danger of the accused absconding or fleeing,

if released on bail;

(v)Character, behavior, means, position and

standing of the accused;

(vi) Likelihood of the offences being repeated;

(vii) Reasonable apprehension of the witness

being influenced and

(vii) Danger, of course, of justice being thwarted

by grant of bail.”

6. It is, however, apt to state here that a Court

while dealing an application for bail should refrain from

evaluating or undertaking a detailed assessment of

evidence, as the same is not a relevant consideration at

the threshold for deciding the bail application, but the

Court may examine prima facie issues including any

reasonable grounds like whether the accused has

committed an offence or the severity of the punishm ent

prescribed for the offence itself, but an extensive

consideration of evidence on merits which has the

potential to prejudice either the case of the prosecution

or the defence is undesirable. It is, thus, deemed

appropriate to outrightly clarify that neither the Court

should consider the case on merits nor is it desirable for

BLAPL Nos.7068, 8167 & 8283 of 2025 Page 10 of 15

the Court to comment on the materials/evidence collected

by the Investigating Agency.

7. In the aforesaid backdrop of the principle as

referred to in preceding paragraphs, when the case of the

Petitioner is considered, it needs to be stated that no

doubt there is serious allegation against the Petitioner,

but it is also stated in the FIR that the informant had

allegedly transferred of money not only to the Petitioner,

but also to the so-called land owner and other persons in

all these three cases which is also evident from the FIRs

lodged against the Petitioner and others. It is alleged in

Pipili PS Case No. 122 of 2025 that the land

owner/accused person namely Smt. Snehalata Swain,

Rama Chandra Pradhan & Nabi Dei settled the rate an d

took advance of Rs. 50 Lakhs from the complainant a nd

after some days, the owner Snehalata is paid for her 50%

share, so also Nabi Dei & Rama Chandra Pradhan for their

25% share each. On the other hand, the State has

produced the instruction in response to the order dated

21.01.2026 passed by this Court, which reveals that the

BLAPL Nos.7068, 8167 & 8283 of 2025 Page 11 of 15

alleged amount involved in the respective police ca ses

are quantified as follows:-

(i) In Pipli PS Case No. 122 of 2025, it is Rs.

2,05,45,769/-;

(ii) In Pipli PS Case No. 123 of 2025, the amount

is 50,87,500/- and

(iii) In Pipli PS Case No. 124 of 2025, the alleged

amount is 78,85,000/-

However, the instruction further reveals that an

amount of Rs. 35,66,000/- has been recovered and left in

zima of the complainant, an amount of Rs. 84,82,448 /-

has been freezed by Axis Bank after placing requisition in

the Bank and a policy of Max Life Insurance for an

amount of Rs. 50,36,900/- has also been freezed. Th e

aforesaid amount either freezed or recovered as per the

Investigating Agency would come around Rs.

1,70,85,348/-. Besides, all the offences alleged against

the Petitioner appears to be triable by Magistrate,

however, the Petitioner was admitted to interim bail on

two spells, but he has never misused the liberty so

granted to him. Further, the Petitioner was granted

interim bail on the ground that he is suffering fro m

Metastatic Cancer which could not be disputed by any of

BLAPL Nos.7068, 8167 & 8283 of 2025 Page 12 of 15

the OPs and the documents so produced for the Petitioner

reveal that he is suffering from Metastatic RCC (Ri ght

Kidney-Post Total Nephrectomy) with Bone & Pleural Mets

(Stage IV). Further, the medical documents reveal t hat

the Petitioner is at present given Palliative treatment. It is

no doubt true that the allegation against the Petitioner

and others is for financial fraud to the tune of Rs. 3.5

Crores, but a sum of Rs. 1.7 Crores appears to have been

secured. In addition, it is never disputed that the criminal

proceedings are not meant for realization of money and

the criminal Court exercising jurisdiction to grant custody

bail or anticipatory bail is not expected to act as recovery

agent to realize the dues of the complainant/inform ant

and that too, without any trial, however, the conduct of

the Petitioner in not misusing the liberty speaks in his

favour and that also satisfy one of the basic conditions

that the Petitioner may not abscond during the trial.

8. The other relevant consideration for grant of bai l

is the tripod test, such as (i) flight risk; (ii) influencing

the witnesses; & (iii) tampering the evidence, but the

apprehension of flight risk can be equally addressed to by

BLAPL Nos.7068, 8167 & 8283 of 2025 Page 13 of 15

directing the Petitioner not to leave the Country b y

surrendering his passport, if any. It is also stated that the

Petitioner has not misused the liberty so granted to him.

Further, with regard to influencing the witness, it appears

that the allegations in this case are mainly on the

documentary evidence of Bank transaction and thereb y,

there is hardly apprehension of influencing witness or

tampering evidence. On the other hand, the principle is

that bail is the rule, but jail is the exception. Additionally,

it is equally important that bail should not be refused as a

pre-trial punishment, since the accused has an inherent

right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty which

principle flows from Article 21 of the Constitution of India

which prescribes that no person shall be deprived of his

life or personal liberty except according to the procedure

established by law. Above all, the Petitioner is terminally

ill by suffering from Stage-IV Metastatic Cancer.

9. In view of the above discussions made

hereinabove and on a careful conspectus of material s

placed on record together with the pre trial detention of

the Petitioner in custody and taking into account t he

BLAPL Nos.7068, 8167 & 8283 of 2025 Page 14 of 15

submission of charge sheet in the meantime in all t he

three cases and the Petitioner having not misused t he

concession/liberty so granted to him in the form of

interim bail and keeping in view the inherent right of the

accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty at

the trial and further taking into account the other

circumstance on record in entirety including

freezing/recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,70,85,348/- from

the Petitioner and other accused persons against wh om

the allegation for taking money from the respective

informants being there, this Court considers the ba il

applications of the Petitioner favourably.

10. Hence, all these three bail applications of the

Petitioner stand allowed and he is allowed to go on bail

on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees O ne

Lakh) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount

to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin of the

case in each of the three cases on such terms and

conditions as deem fit and proper by it with follow ing

conditions:-

BLAPL Nos.7068, 8167 & 8283 of 2025 Page 15 of 15

(i) The petitioner shall not leave the country

without prior permission of the trial Court,

(ii) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if

any, and in case, he is not a holder of the same,

he shall swear affidavits to that effect and,

(iii) The petitioner shall cooperate in the trial by

attending the Court on each date of posting

unless his attendance is dispensed with by the

learned trial Court and In case the petitioner

fails without sufficient cause to appear in

the Court in accordance with the terms of

the bail, the learned trial Court may

proceed against the Petitioner for offence

U/S.269 of BNS, 2023 in accordance with

law,

(iv) the petitioner shall inform the Court as well

as the IO as to his place of residence during the

trial by providing his mobile number(s),

residential address, e-mail, if any, and other

documents in support of proof of his residence,

(v) in case the petitioner misuse the liberty of

bail and in order to secure his presence,

proclamation U/S.84 of BNSS is issued and the

petitioner fails to appear before the Court on the

date fixed in such proclamation, then, the

learned trial Court is at liberty to initiate

proceeding against him for offence U/S.209 of

the BNS in accordance with law.

11. Accordingly, these three bail applications

stand disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of the

order as per Rules.

(G. Satapathy)

Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack,

Dated the 13

th

day of February, 2026/Priyajit