Page 1 of 15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

ABLAPL No.836 of 2026

Narayan Prasad Behera …. Petitioner

Mr. L. Samantaray, Sr. Advocate

-Versus-

State of Odisha …. Opposite Party

Mr. P. S. Nayak, AGA

ABLAPL No.14727 of 2025

Saibyarani Mohanta @

Saibarani Mohanta

…. Petitioner

Mr. P.K. Mohanty, Advocate

-Versus-

State of Odisha …. Opposite Party

Mr. P. S. Nayak, AGA

ABLAPL No.14770 of 2025

Manoranjan Nanda …. Petitioner

Mr. L. Samantaray, Sr. Advocate

-Versus-

State of Odisha …. Opposite Party

Mr. P. S. Nayak, AGA

ABLAPL No.14905 of 2025

Ananta Dehury @ Ananta

Dahuri

…. Petitioner

Mr. S.K. Dwibedi, Advocate

-Versus-

State of Odisha …. Opposite Party

Mr. P. S. Nayak, AGA

AFR

Page 2 of 15

ABLAPL No.14959 of 2025

Manoranjan Nanda …. Petitioner

Mr. L. Samantaray, Sr. Advocate

-Versus-

State of Odisha …. Opposite Party

Mr. P. S. Nayak, AGA

ABLAPL No.913 of 2026

Tapan Kumar Mohanty …. Petitioner

Mr. A. Mohanty, Advocate

-Versus-

State of Odisha …. Opposite Party

Mr. P. S. Nayak, AGA

ABLAPL No.958 of 2026

Pradipta Kumra Mohanty …. Petitioner

Mr. S. Mohapatra, Sr. Advocate

Mr. P. Mohapatra, Advocate

-Versus-

State of Odisha …. Opposite Party

Mr. P. S. Nayak, AGA

ABLAPL No.995 of 2026

Ranjit Kanta Swain …. Petitioner

Mr. L. Samantaray, Sr. Advocate

-Versus-

State of Odisha …. Opposite Party

Mr. P. S. Nayak, AGA

ABLAPL No.1064 of 2026

Akshya Kumar Swain …. Petitioner

Mr. L. Samantaray, Sr. Advocate

-Versus-

State of Odisha …. Opposite Party

Mr. P. S. Nayak, AGA

Page 3 of 15

ABLAPL No.1077 of 2026

Dilip Kumar Parija …. Petitioner

Mr. D. Patnaik, Advocate

-Versus-

State of Odisha …. Opposite Party

Mr. P. S. Nayak, AGA

ABLAPL No.1592 of 2026

Gobinda Chandra Behera …. Petitioner

Mr. L. Samantaray, Sr. Advocate

-Versus-

State of Odisha …. Opposite Party

Mr. P. S. Nayak, AGA

ABLAPL No.2095 of 2026

Rasmita Swain …. Petitioner

Mr. S.K. Padhi, Advocate

-Versus-

State of Odisha …. Opposite Party

Mr. P. S. Nayak, AGA

ABLAPL No.5220 of 2026

Sunita Mohanty & another …. Petitioners

Mr. D. Patnaik, Advocate

-Versus-

State of Odisha …. Opposite Party

Mr. P. S. Nayak, AGA

A N D

ABLAPL No.5507 of 2026

Krushna Chandra Mallick …. Petitioner

Mr. H. Mohapatra, Advocate

-Versus-

State of Odisha …. Opposite Party

Mr. P. S. Nayak, AGA

Page 4 of 15

CORAM:

JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

DATE OF HEARING:09.07.2026

DATE OF ORDER:03.08.2026

1. All the ABLAPLs are clubbed together and disposed

of by the following common order.

2. Instant petitions under Section 482 BNS are filed by

the petitioners seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with the

respective cases arising out of CID CB Case Nos, 9 and 10

of 2025, CID CB Case No.13 of 2021 corresponding to G.R.

Case Nos.1098 and 1127 of 2025 and 573 of 2021 pending

in the Courts of learned JMFC-III (Cog. Taking) Cuttack

and learned JMFC, Pipili on the grounds stated.

3. Perused the FIRs as at Annexure-1 (in all the cases).

4. Briefly stated, the petitioners apprehend arrest in

connection with the cases registered under Sections 3(5),

315, 316, 336 (2), 337, 338, 339 and 631 BNSS. In fact, the

prosecution case in brief is that the informants lodged the

FIRs alleging therein that false complaints were lodged with

regard to the accident claims in order to defraud the

Insurance Companies which revealed commission of

cognizable offences and as such, the investigation of the

cases subsequent to such revelation made was taken over by

the CID CB. It is made to understand that the CID CB,

Cuttack submitted reports stating therein that it was

entrusted to enquire into the allegations made to ascertain

the involvement of vehicles in multiple false insurance

claim cases and it has revealed that UD cases were filed in

Page 5 of 15

respect thereof and ultimately, it has led to the grant of

compensation. Such inquiry revealed that EC cases were

filed seeking compensation, claiming accidents to have

taken place involving vehicles but without any such

information lodged at the concerned P.S. and as a result, it

has been awarded to the injured and kin of the deceased. It

is alleged that during discreet inquiry and analysis vis-à-vis

the cases with regard to employees’ compensation claims, it

was ascertained about not lodging any complaints before the

local police regarding vehicular accidents taking place

involving the vehicles in question. By alleging the mischief,

the compensation in respect of the cases was managed and

upon receiving enquiry reports submitted to the SP, CID

CB, Odisha, the FIRs were lodged for action against the

accused persons responsible for the same.

5. The petitioners in ABLAPL No. 836 of 2026,

ABLAPL No.14770 of 2025, ABLAPL No.14959 of 2025,

ABLAPL No.958 of 2026, ABLAPL No.1064 of 2026,

ABLAPL No.1077 of 2026, ABLAPL No. 1592 of 2026,

ABLAPL No.5507 of 2026 are lawyers; in ABLAPL

No.14905 of 2025, ABLAPL No.14727 of 2025, ABLAPL

No.995 of 2026, ABLAPL No. 2095 of 2026, the petitioners

are claimants; and in ABLAPL No.913 of 2026, ABLAPL

No.5220 of 2026, the petitioners are the vehicle owners.

6. The allegations in the FIRs are about managing

compensation with involvement of the vehicles. The inquiry

by the CID CB allegedly revealed the mischief and in

receiving the compensation for the injury and deaths shown

Page 6 of 15

to have taken place with false claim of accidents. In the

FIRs, the names of the suspected persons for the alleged

mischief have been mentioned.

7. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

8. Learned counsels for the petitioners submit that in

view of the FIRs lodged, the petitioners apprehend arrest in

the hands of the CID CB. In fact, pursuant to the order dated

6

th

April, 2026 by the Apex Court in Special Leave to

Appeal (C) No(s) 5582 of 2023 (Oriental Insurance

Company Limited Vrs. Auni Pati & others), the inquiry has

been conducted by the CID CB. In the order (supra), a

direction was issued to the State for investigations into the

cases to be carried out to find out whether there was

complicity of the officials of the Insurance Companies to

find out whether there was complicity in view of the fact

that cases of fraudulent nature were not reported to the

police for appropriate action by them. It has also been

directed therein that all the officials of the Insurance

Companies from top to bottom shall be a part of the

investigation depending on whether they had information of

such fraud being committed and still chose not to direct the

lodging of appropriate proceedings before the competent

authorities/police. In accordance with the directions as

aforesaid, the FIRs were lodged preceded by an inquiry by

the CID CB.

9. Noted down the submissions of Mr. Nayak, learned

counsel appearing for the CID CB.

Page 7 of 15

10. The investigation is in progress. The FIRs have been

lodged recently for the alleged incidents, which are more

than 10 years old. The contention of learned counsel for the

petitioners is that the petitioners, who are named in the

FIRs, are apprehensive of arrest in the cases. The further

contention is that some of the petitioners are legal

practitioners and members of the High Court Bar

Associations; others are claimants and vehicle owners and at

this distant point in time after the FIRs were lodged, all are

apprehending arrest by the CID CB. It is contended that the

claim cases have been settled long back and have attained

finality. The further contention is that the Insurance

Companies even filed FAOs against the awards but were

dismissed and also confirmed by the Apex Court and

therefore, at this juncture, any such arrest of the petitioners

would be unjustified. The submission of learned counsel for

the petitioners is that the petitioners are ready and willing to

cooperate with the investigation of the cases registered and

therefore, there is no need for their arrest and if that

happens, it would put them to undue humiliation,

furthermore, when no prima facie case is made out against

anyone. It is further contended that the petitioners are law-

abiding citizens and being local residents and some of them

are even legal practitioners, there is no chance of their

abscondence or tampering with evidence and hence, they are

entitled to pre-arrest bail pending investigation.

11. On the contrary, Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the

CID CB submits that there has been a large-scale fraud with

Page 8 of 15

the involvement of the vehicle owners, claimants and others

and considering the allegations in the FIRs lodged,

consequent upon a discreet inquiry, it is not a case for

anticipatory bail, all the more when such an inquiry has

revealed the alleged mischief pursuant to the order of the

Apex Court (supra).

12. The foremost question is, whether, in the given

circumstances of the case, the petitioners are entitled to pre-

arrest bail? Is it a case for physical custody and

interrogation of the petitioners? Would it be proper to deny

bail to the petitioners when nothing is really revealed about

the architect of the mischief? Law is well settled that in

cases of serious offences committed, the Courts are to be

cautious while considering grant of pre-arrest bail. It is also

a settled law that mere assertion of custody during the

investigation would not be sufficient to deny anticipatory

bail to the accused and the State shall have to prima facie

convince the Court why custodial interrogation is required

during investigation. In a catena of decisions, it has been

held by the Apex Court as to when the custodial

interrogation is one of the effective modes of investigation.

Just because such interrogation is not required, that by itself

may not be the ground to release the accused on anticipatory

bail when the offences are of serious nature. Just assertion

on the part of the State opposing the pre-arrest bail for

custodial interrogation would not be sufficient either, since

it shall have to show or indicate more than the prima facie

case while demanding physical custody and interrogation

Page 9 of 15

for the purpose of investigation. Normally, when an accused

cooperates with the investigation, it is considered a ground

to grant him pre-arrest bail. If it is made to understand that

the accused has joined the investigation and extended

cooperation, it would be a consideration for the Court on a

decision of pre-arrest bail. As earlier stated, with the claim

cases more than ten years old, at this point of time, upon the

reports being lodged alleging fraud in managing

compensation, whether, the petitioners who apprehend

arrest should be granted anticipatory bail.

13. At times, custodial interrogation is not considered

necessary in a case registered after much delay provided the

accused is cooperating with the investigation and there is no

risk of his absconding or evidence tempering. In the case at

hand, the fraud has been revealed long after only upon an

inquiry conducted by the CID CB consequent to the

directions of the Apex Court in the case (supra). Such delay,

as according to the Court, is a circumstance against

considering the necessity of physical custody and

interrogation. Of course, the reason behind the delay is clear

and apparent and it has been possible only after inquiry

directed by the Apex Court while dealing with a case of

compensation. In the case of present nature, the Court is to

consider the gravity of the allegations and also the need for

custodial interrogation of the accused involved. As earlier

discussed, the State cannot simply oppose bail by claiming

that custodial interrogation is required. A mere assertion for

custodial interrogation is not sufficient, rather, the

Page 10 of 15

prosecution must have to submit some incriminating

evidence while demanding the same. When the nature of

evidence primarily depends on official records that are

already in possession of the authorities/police, the custodial

interrogation is deemed completely unnecessary. A Court

may deny bail and permit custody for interrogation under

exceptional circumstances. For instance, where the police

need to recover physical items, such other incriminating

materials or proceeds of a crime that cannot be retrieved

without the active disclosure of the accused or where the

cases involve serious offences or where the accused refused

to join the investigation, ignores requisition of police for

inquiry or attempts to intimidate the witnesses. In such

cases, the Courts may have to revoke liberty in favour of

custodial question of the accused. It is also to be borne in

mind that the custodial interrogation, even if not necessary,

cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail as it has been

held by the Apex Court with the observation that such is the

very common argument canvassed demanding anticipatory

bail, which is rather a misconception of law.

14. Section 438 Cr.P.C. is statutory tool that can render

custodial interrogation unnecessary. The Apex Court in Shri

Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others Vrs. State of Punjab

1980 SCC (Cri.) 465 provided a liberal interpretation of

Section 438 Cr.P.C. emphasizing its broad discretionary

nature and role in preserving personal liberty reaffirmed in

Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vrs. State of

Maharashtra and others (2011) 1 SCC 694, wherein, it

Page 11 of 15

has been held and observed that anticipatory bail is not an

extraordinary remedy, but a vital provision to safeguard

individual liberty against arbitrary detention. Recently, in

Sushila Aggarwal and others Vrs. State (NCT of Delhi)

and another 2020 SCC OnLine SC 98, a Constitution

Bench of the Apex Court clarified that there is no specific

time limit for an anticipatory bail order and it can, subject to

the Court’s discretion and conditions imposed, continue till

the end of the trial underscoring that anticipatory bail aligns

with Article 21 of the Consitituion. It is argued that if an

accused cooperates with the investigation as required, the

necessity for custodial interrogation is diminished

significantly. The purpose of custodial interrogation is to

gather material information, which may often be difficult

through non-custodial questioning when the accused is

under the protective umbrella of anticipatory bail. It is

consistently acknowledged the utility and at times,

indispensability of custodial interrogation for effective

investigation, particularly, in complex cases or where the

accused is not cooperative as held by the Apex Court in

State Rep. By CBI Vrs. Anil Sharma (1997) 7 SCC 197.

15. On a sincere reading of the case laws referred to

hereinabove, it is logically deduced that a decision, whether,

custodial interrogation is necessary involves a delicate

balancing act. The Courts must have to weigh the

investigative needs against the fundamental right and liberty

of an individual. The cooperation of the accused in the

investigation is an important factor. If an individual

Page 12 of 15

cooperates with the investigation, provides necessary

information and is unlikely to abscond or tamper with

evidence, the insistence on custodial interrogation wanes

considerably.

16. The jurisprudence vis-à-vis custodial interrogation

reflects a dynamic interplay between the State’s power to

investigate and the individual’s right to liberty. While

custodial interrogation remains a recognized tool for

investigation, its necessity is not absolute and is always

subject to judicial scrutiny. While the utility of custodial

interrogation for eliciting crucial information is

acknowledged as in Anil Sharma (supra), and P.

Chidambaram Vrs. Directorate of Enforcement (2019),

the evolving legal landscape increasingly emphasizes that

such power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. must be exercised

judiciously and not as a routine measure. The emphasis on

Section 41-A Cr.P.C., the liberal interpretation of

anticipatory bail provisions and the judicial practice for

granting bail seek to minimize pre-trial detention and

custodial interrogation unless really essential for the

investigation, hence, it has to be ensured that the demand for

physical interrogation is absolutely necessary and not a tool

for harassment thereby upholding the delicate balance

between the effective law enforcement and the cherished

constitutional guarantee of personal liberty.

17. Having discussed the basic principles to apply while

considering the plea of pre-arrest bail, this Court shall have

Page 13 of 15

to examine the records and the need for any such

interrogation of the petitioners during investigation, which

is admittedly at a nascent stage, commenced only after the

Apex Court’s order in the month of April, 2024. Since some

of the petitioners were the conducting counsels of the claim

cases at the relevant point of time, they apprehend arrest by

the CID CB pursuant to the direction of the Apex Court in

the SLP and lodging of the FIRs. Similarly, two of the

owners of the vehicles besides the claimants are wary of

their arrest for having received compensation. The incidents

that culminated in the claim cases and compensation

awarded are more than a decade old. The involvement of the

alleged vehicles and the cause of deaths found to be fake

during such inquiry and for that, the FIRs were lodged and

at present, investigation is stated to be on. Who is

responsible for the alleged mischief, whether, any of the

petitioners and hence, responsible for the alleged mischief,

needs a thorough investigation. The CID CB shall have to

pinpoint the accused persons really responsible for the

mischief. The Apex Court revealed that neither the

Insurance Companies nor the authorities ever lodged any

complaints that allowed compensation in favour of the

claimants. An inquiry shall have to be made by the CID CB

even with regard to the involvement of any such officials of

the Insurance Companies, who had the knowledge or

information of such fraud but still ignored in lodging

complaints. It cannot be readily assumed at this stage that

the petitioners, who were the lawyers of the claim cases, did

have had the knowledge or a party to the fraud and mischief

Page 14 of 15

committed. Whether such mischief was committed with the

complicity of the vehicle owners is also a matter to be gone

through during investigation. Since, the compensation were

allowed long before, this Court is also of the view that the

petitioners, who allegedly laid false claims may be directed

to cooperate with the investigation since they are locals and

most unlikely to abscond. At a time when the inquiry and

investigation is in progress and there is a possibility of

involvement of many others including the officials of the

Insurance Companies, this Court is of the view that the

interim protection granted to the petitioners should be

allowed to continue. Furthermore, nothing is brought to the

notice of the Court to justify the requirement of custodial

interrogation of any of the petitioners during investigation.

This Court is inclined to hold that the physical custody and

interrogation since not demanded, the petitioners are eligible

to pre-arrest bail but subject to the conditions. Such is the

view of the Court keeping in view the settled principles of

law enunciated by the Apex Court in the cases (supra)

referred to and discussed hereinabove.

18. Accordingly, it is ordered.

19. In the result, the ABLAPLs stand disposed of. As a

necessary corollary, the petitioners, in the event of their

arrests in connection with CID CB Case Nos, 9 and 10 of

2025, CID CB Case No.13 of 2021 corresponding to G.R.

Case Nos.1098 and 1127 of 2025 & 573 of 2021 pending

before the learned JMFC-III (Cog. Taking) Cuttack and

Page 15 of 15

learned JMFC, Pipili, shall be released on bail by the

Arresting Officer upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs.30,000/-

(rupees thirty thousand) each with one solvent surety for the

like amount each with such other conditions imposed by

learned Courts below as deemed just and proper in the facts

and circumstances of the case besides the following, such

as, they shall cooperate the IOs for the purpose of

investigation without default; not to tamper with the

evidence by influencing any of the material witnesses

connected to the cases in any manner whatsoever, while on

bail; and not leave the jurisdiction of the concerned Courts

without its permission being obtained.

20. In case, any of the conditions is/are violated, it is made

to clear that the bail granted to the petitioners shall stands

automatically cancelled.

(R.K. Pattanaik)

Judge

Balaram