BLAPL Nos.10846, 12759 of 2025 & 1880 of 2026

Page 1 of 28

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

BLAPL Nos.10846, 12759 of 2025 and 1880 of 2026

(In the matter of applications under Section 483 of

BNSS, 2023).

Manas Ranjan Barik

(In BLAPL No.10846 of 2025)

Raju Goswami

(In BLAPL No.12759 of 2025)

Susanta Kumar Samal

(In BLAPL No.1880 of 2026)

… Petitioners

Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate

(in BLAPL No.10846 of 2025)

Mr. S.C. Mohapatra, Sr. Advocate, along with

Mr. S. Dwibedi, Advocate

(in BLAPL No.12759 of 2025)

Mr. D.P. Dhal, Sr. Advocate along with

Mr. K. Mohanty, Advocate

(in BLAPL No.1880 of 2026)

-versus-

State of Odisha (EOW) … Opposite Party

Mr. P.S. Nayak, Specially engaged counsel

CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

DATE OF HEARING :15.05.2026

DATE OF JUDGMENT:22.05.2026

G. Satapathy, J.

1. These are the bail applications U/S.483 of

BNSS by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection

with EOW PS Case No.03 of 2025 corresponding to CT

Case No.4(C) of 2025 pending in the file of learned

BLAPL Nos.10846, 12759 of 2025 & 1880 of 2026

Page 2 of 28

Presiding Officer, Designated Court, Under OPID Act,

Balasore, for commission of offences punishable

U/Ss.406/409/420/467/468/471/120-B of IPC, on the

main allegation of committing large scale financial fraud

and misappropriation of crores of rupees by receiving

disproportionate high payment for commercial

transaction made with Gandhamardan Loading Agency

and Transporting Co-operative Society Ltd. with forged

documents after entering into conspiracy with co-

accused persons.

2. The background of facts giving rise to these

three bail applications are that around eighteen years

back, one society namely Gandhamardan Loading

Agency and Transporting Co-operative Society Ltd,

Suakati, Keonjhar (hereinafter referred to as “the

society”) was created for the development of the

affected villages of Gandhamardan Mines, Putulipani

Mines and Khandadhar Mines, but since last seven

years (2017-18 to 2023-24), the president and the

secretary of the aforesaid organization with assistance

BLAPL Nos.10846, 12759 of 2025 & 1880 of 2026

Page 3 of 28

of others were/are doing illegal business instead of

doing developmental work by taking the loading work

of extracted ores from these mines to their own hand

without allowing any other organization to do the same

and in the process, misappropriating a sum of Rs.40 to

50 Crores annually. It is alleged that the accused

persons by forging various documents and showing

false expenditure under fictitious heads towards

“periphery development of the affected villages and fuel

charges” have allegedly misappropriated the amount,

which are unearthed in a special audit conducted due to

specific complaints. It is further alleged that the funds

generated from the monopoly business of loading of

iron ores of the society were being allegedly siphoned

off by the president & secretary of the society through

cash or self cheques without proper supporting

documents like work orders or vouchers and by not

recording the transactions in the official register. On the

aforesaid allegation, one Biswanath Roul has lodged an

FIR before Superintendent of Police, EOW Bhubaneswar

BLAPL Nos.10846, 12759 of 2025 & 1880 of 2026

Page 4 of 28

against the president Manas Ranjan Barik, secretary

Utkal Das and others office bearers of the society

paving the way for registration of Bhubaneswar EOW

PS Case No.03 of 2025 for commission of offences

punishable U/S.406/ 409/ 420/ 467/ 468/ 471/ 120-B

of IPC and the matter was investigated into. Finding the

complicity of the petitioners, they were taken into

custody giving rise to these present bail applications by

the petitioners after they became unsuccessful in

approaching the PO, Designated Court (under OPID

Act), Balasore for securing their liberty.

3. This Court has heard Mr. Sitikant Mishra,

learned counsel for the petitioner-Manas Ranjan Barik

in BLAPL No.10842 of 2025; Mr. Soura Chandra

Mohapatra, learned Sr. Counsel who is being assisted

by Mr. Suryakanta Dwibedi, learned counsel for the

petitioner-Raju Goswami in BLAPL No.12759 of 2025;

Mr. Debi Prasad Dhal, learned Sr. counsel who is being

assisted by Mr. Koustuv Mohanty, learned counsel for

the petitioner-Susanta Kumar Samal in BLAPL No.1880

BLAPL Nos.10846, 12759 of 2025 & 1880 of 2026

Page 5 of 28

of 2026 and Mr. Partha Sarathi Nayak, learned Addl.

Public Prosecutor in these matters and perused the

record.

4. Admittedly, the three petitioners have

sought for bail, but the petitioner Susanta Kumar

Samal in BLAPL No. 1880 of 2026 claims bail for non-

compliance of Sec.47 of BNSS r/w Article 22(1) of the

Constitution of India and his specific plea in this regard

is for non-communication of grounds of arrest in writing

to him. Addressing the plea of the petitioner Susanta

Kumar Samal, at the outset it appears that the

petitioner Susanta Kumar Samal has earlier

unsuccessfully approached this Court in BLAPL No.

4127 of 2025 and BLAPL No. 7534 of 2025, but he has

never advanced such plea and for the first time, the

petitioner Susanta Kumar Samal is taking such plea in

this bail application, however, against the common

judgment passed in BLAPL No. 7534 of 2025 concerning

petitioner Susanta Kumar Samal & BLAPL No. 7952 of

2025 refusing bail to the co-accused and petitioner, the

BLAPL Nos.10846, 12759 of 2025 & 1880 of 2026

Page 6 of 28

co-accused Soumya Sankar Chakra @ Raja, who was

the petitioner in BLAPL No. 7952 of 2025 had

approached the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal

(Crl.) No(s). 20233/2025, but the counsel appearing

therein after arguing for some time sought permission

to withdraw the Special Leave Petition and the same

was accordingly withdrawn after grant of permission.

5. Be that as it may, the safeguard as

provided against the arrest and detention by way of

constitutional protection guaranteed under Article 22 of

the Constitution of India which is the fundamental right

of person can be agitated at any time and subsequent

action thereon cannot validate the earlier wrong made

in compliance of such provision. In arguing non-

compliance of Sec.47 of BNSS/Article 22(1) of

Constitution of India, Mr. Dhal, learned Senior Counsel

places reliance on (i) Pankaj Bansal Vrs. Union of

India; (2024) 7 SCC 576 (ii) Prabir Purkayastha

vs. State (NCT of Delhi); (2024) 8 SCC 254, (iii)

Ram Kishor Arora Vrs. Enforcement Directorate,

BLAPL Nos.10846, 12759 of 2025 & 1880 of 2026

Page 7 of 28

(2024) 7 SCC 599, (iv) Mihir Rajesh Shah Vrs.

State of Maharashtra; (2026) 1 SCC 500 (v) Dr.

Rajinder Rajan vs. Union of India Another; 2026

SCC OnLine (SC) 802 . The relevant paragraphs of

these decisions as relied on by the learned Senior

Counsel are reproduced as under.

5.1. In Pankaj Bansal (supra), the Apex

Court in Paragraphs-39 & 45 has held as follows:-

“39. We may also note that the language of

Section 19 PMLA puts it beyond doubt that the

authorised officer has to record in writing the

reasons for forming the belief that the person

proposed to be arrested is guilty of an offence

punishable under the 2002 Act. Section 19(2)

requires the authorized officer to forward a

copy of the arrest order along with the

material in his possession, referred to in

Section 19(1), to the adjudicating authority in

a sealed envelope. Though it is not necessary

for the arrested person to be supplied with all

the material that is forwarded to the

adjudicating authority under Section 19(2),

he/she has a constitutional and statutory right

to be "informed" of the grounds of arrest,

which are compulsorily recorded in writing by

the authorised officer in keeping with the

mandate of Section 19(1) PMLA. As already

noted hereinbefore, it seems that the mode of

informing this to the persons arrested is left to

the option of ED's authorised officers in

different parts of the country i.e. to either

BLAPL Nos.10846, 12759 of 2025 & 1880 of 2026

Page 8 of 28

furnish such grounds of arrest in writing or to

allow such grounds to be read by the arrested

person or be read over and explained to such

person.

45. On the above analysis, to give true

meaning and purpose to the constitutional and

the statutory mandate of Section 19(1) PMLA

of informing the arrested person of the

grounds of arrest, we hold that it would be

necessary, henceforth, that a copy of such

written grounds of arrest is furnished to the

arrested person as a matter of course and

without exception. The decisions of the Delhi

High Court in Moin Akhtar Qureshi and the

Bombay High Court in Chhagan Chandrakant

Bhujbal, which hold to the contrary, do not lay

down the correct law. In the case on hand, the

admitted position is that ED's investigating

officer merely read out or permitted reading of

the grounds of arrest of the appellants and left

it at that, which is also disputed by the

appellants. As this form of communication is

not found to be adequate to fulfill compliance

with the mandate of Article 22(1) of the

Constitution and Section 19(1) PMLA, we have

no hesitation in holding that their arrest was

not in keeping with the provisions of Section

19(1) PMLA. Further, as already noted supra,

the clandestine conduct of ED in proceeding

against the appellants, by recording the

second ECIR immediately after they secured

interim protection in relation to the first ECIR,

does not commend acceptance as it reeks of

arbitrary exercise of power. In effect, the

arrest of the appellants and, in consequence,

their remand to the custody of ED and,

thereafter, to judicial custody, cannot be

sustained.”

BLAPL Nos.10846, 12759 of 2025 & 1880 of 2026

Page 9 of 28

5.2. In Ram Kishor Arora (supra), the Apex

Court in Paragraph-23 has held as follows:-

“23. As discernible from the judgment in

Pankaj Bansal case also noticing the

inconsistent practice being followed by the

officers arresting the persons under Section 19

PMLA, directed to furnish the grounds of arrest

in writing as a matter of course, "henceforth",

meaning thereby from the date of the

pronouncement of the judgment. The very use

of the word "henceforth" implied that the said

requirement of furnishing grounds of arrest in

writing to the arrested person as soon as after

his arrest was not mandatory or obligatory till

the date of the said judgment. The submission

of the learned Senior Counsel Mr Singhvi for

the appellant that the said judgment was

required to be given effect retrospectively

cannot be accepted when the judgment itself

states that it would be necessary "henceforth"

that a copy of such written grounds of arrest is

furnished to the arrested person as a matter of

course and without exception. Hence, non-

furnishing of grounds of arrest in writing till

the date of pronouncement of judgment in

Pankaj Bansal case could neither be held to be

illegal nor the action of the officer concerned

in not furnishing the same in writing could be

faulted with. As such, the action of informing

the person arrested about the grounds of his

arrest is a sufficient compliance of Section 19

PMLA as also Article 22(1) of the Constitution

of India, as held in Vijay Madanlal [Vijay

Madanlal Choudhary Vrs. Union of India,

(2023) 12 SCC 1 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC

929].”

BLAPL Nos.10846, 12759 of 2025 & 1880 of 2026

Page 10 of 28

5.3. In Prabir Purkayastha (supra), the Apex

Court in Paragraph-44 has held as follows:-

“44. It was the fervent contention of the

learned ASG that in Ram Kishor Arora, a two-

Judge Bench of this Court interpreted the

judgment in Pankaj Bansal to be having a

prospective effect and thus the ratio of Pankaj

Bansal cannot come to the appellant's aid.

Indisputably, the appellant herein was

remanded to police custody on 4-10-2023

whereas the judgment in Pankaj Bansal was

delivered on 3-10-2023. Merely on a

conjectural submission regarding the late

uploading of the judgment, the learned ASG

cannot be permitted to argue that the ratio of

Pankaj Bansal would not apply to the present

case. Hence, the plea of Shri Raju, learned

ASG that the judgment in Pankaj Bansal would

not apply to the proceedings of remand made

on 4-10-2023 is misconceived.”

5.4. In Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra), the Apex

Court in Paragraphs-66, 66.1 to 66.4 has held as

follows:-

“66. In conclusion, it is held that:

66.1. The constitutional mandate of

informing the arrestee the grounds of

arrest is mandatory in all offences under

all statutes including offences under IPC,

1860 (now BNSS 2023);

BLAPL Nos.10846, 12759 of 2025 & 1880 of 2026

Page 11 of 28

66.2. The grounds of arrest must be

communicated in writing to the arrestee

in the language he/she understands;

66.3. In case(s) where, the arresting

officer/person is unable to communicate the

grounds of arrest in writing on or soon after

arrest, it be so done orally . The said

grounds be communicated in writing

within a reasonable time and in any case

at least two hours prior to production of

the arrestee for remand proceedings before

the Magistrate.

66.4. In case of non-compliance of the above,

the arrest and subsequent remand would

be rendered illegal and the person will be

at liberty to be set free.”

5.5. In Dr. Rajinder Rajan (supra), the Apex

Court in Paragraphs-20 & 22 has held as follows:-

“20. It is no longer res integra that supplying

the grounds of arrest to the accused in writing

before the arrest or, in a given case, under

exceptional circumstances, immediately

thereafter, is the mandate of the constitutional

guarantees provided under Article 22(1) read

with Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The

ratio of the judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah

(supra) conclusively holds that any deviation

from the above principle would lead to the

arrest of the accused being declared illegal

entitling such accused to be released

forthwith.

22. On going through the arrest memo, we

find that it has been prepared in a template

format and contains a statement to the effect

that the arresting officer had explained the

BLAPL Nos.10846, 12759 of 2025 & 1880 of 2026

Page 12 of 28

grounds of arrest to the accused before the

arrest. Thus, the arrest memo, by itself,

reflects that the grounds of arrest had been

orally explained to the accused before the

process of formal arrest was undertaken.

Consequently, it was incumbent upon the

arresting officer to have supplied the memo of

grounds of arrest in writing to the accused two

hours prior to producing them before the

Magistrate as per the mandate of Mihir

Rajesh Shah (supra) which apparently has

not been followed in this case.”

6. In opposing the plea of the petitioner-

Susanta Kumar Samal, learned State Counsel relies

upon the following paragraphs of the decision in State

of Karnataka Vrs. Sri Darshan, (2025) SCC OnLine

SC 1702 which reads thus:-

“20.1. Delay in furnishing the grounds of

arrest cannot, by itself, constitute a valid

ground for grant of bail.

20.1.1 . The learned counsel for the

respondents – accused contended that the

arrest was illegal as the grounds of arrest

were not furnished immediately in writing,

thereby violating Article 22 (1) of the

Constitution and Section 50 Cr.P.C (now

Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita). This submission, however, is devoid

of merit.

20.1.2. Article 22(1) of the Constitution

mandates that “no person who is arrested

shall be detained in custody without being

BLAPL Nos.10846, 12759 of 2025 & 1880 of 2026

Page 13 of 28

informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds

for such arrest, nor shall he be denied the

right to consult, and to be defended by, a

legal practitioner of his choice”. Similarly,

Section 50 (1) Cr.P.C. requires that “every

police officer or other person arresting any

person without warrant shall forthwith

communicate to him full particulars of the

offence for which he is arrested or other

grounds for such arrest.

20.1.3. The constitutional and statutory

framework thus mandates that the arrested

person must be informed of the grounds of

arrest – but neither provision prescribes a

specific form or insists upon written

communication in every case. Judicial

precedents have clarified that substantial

compliance with these requirements is

sufficient, unless demonstrable prejudice is

shown.

20.1.4. In Vihaan Kumar v. State of

Haryana [2025 SCC OnLine SC 456] , it

was reiterated that Article 22(1) is satisfied if

the accused is made aware of the arrest

grounds in substance, even if not conveyed in

writing. Similarly, in Kasireddy Upender

Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh [2025

INSC 768], it was observed that when arrest

is made pursuant a warrant, reading out the

warrant amounts to sufficient compliance.

Both these post- Pankaj Bansal decisions

clarify that written, individualised grounds are

not an inflexible requirement in all

circumstances.

20.1.5. While Section 50 Cr.P.C is

mandatory, the consistent judicial approach

has been to adopt a prejudice-oriented test

when examining alleged procedural lapses.

The mere absence of written grounds does

BLAPL Nos.10846, 12759 of 2025 & 1880 of 2026

Page 14 of 28

not ipso facto render the arrest illegal,

unless it results in demonstrable prejudice or

denial of a fair opportunity to defend.

20.1.6. The High Court, however, relied

heavily on the alleged procedural lapse as a

determinative factor while overlooking the

gravity of the offence under Section 302 IPC

and the existence of a prima facie case. It

noted, inter alia, that there was no mention

in the remand orders about service of memo

of grounds of arrest (para 45); the arrest

memos were allegedly template-based and

not personalised (para 50); and

eyewitnesses had not stated that they were

present at the time of arrest or had signed

the memos (para 48). Relying on Pankaj

Bansal v. Union of India [(2024) 7 SCC 576]

and Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of

Delhi) (supra), it concluded (paras 43, 49 –

50) that from 03.10.2023 onwards, failure to

serve detailed, written, and individualised

grounds of arrest immediately after arrest

was a violation entitling the accused to bail.

20.1.7. In the present case, the arrest

memos and remand records clearly reflect

that the respondents were aware of the

reasons for their arrest. They were legally

represented from the outset and applied for

bail shortly after arrest, evidencing an

immediate and informed understanding of

the accusations. No material has been

placed on record to establish that any

prejudice was caused due to the alleged

procedural lapse. In the absence of

demonstrable prejudice, such as irregularity

is, at best, a curable defect and cannot, by

itself, warrant release on bail. As reiterated

above, the High Court treated it as a

determinative factor while overlooking the

BLAPL Nos.10846, 12759 of 2025 & 1880 of 2026

Page 15 of 28

gravity of the charge under Section 302 IPC

and the existence of a prima facie case. Its

reliance on Pankaj Bansal and Prabir

Purkayastha is misplaced, as those decisions

turned on materially different facts and

statutory contexts. The approach adopted

here is inconsistent with the settled principle

that procedural lapses in furnishing grounds

of arrest, absent prejudice, do not ipso facto

render custody illegal or entitle the accused

to bail.”

7. The upshot of conspectus of the provision

of Sec.47 of BNSS read with Article 22(1) of the

Constitution of India together with rulings of the Apex

Court in the decisions referred to above is the

inexorable conclusion that informing/communicating

the grounds of arrest to the arrestee forthwith

immediate after arrest or two hours prior to his

production before the Magistrate in the language he

understands is not only the statutory mandate, but also

the constitutional guarantee to an accused person and

non-compliance thereof shall render the arrest and

remand vitiated, however, the mode and manner of

communication/informing grounds of arrest to the

arrestee has not been prescribed under the statute and

it is accordingly provided therein in the statute to

BLAPL Nos.10846, 12759 of 2025 & 1880 of 2026

Page 16 of 28

communicate the arrestee the particulars of the offence

for which he is arrested or other grounds of such arrest.

The petitioner herein takes a specific plea of non-

communication of grounds of arrest in writing for non-

compliance of Sec. 47 of BNSS, but he has not taken

the stand of non-communication of grounds of arrest

otherwise. The petitioner mainly relies upon the

decision in Pankaj Bansal (supra) to interpret the

word “henceforth” to be reckoned on and from

03.10.2023 which is the date of pronouncement of

judgment in Pankaj Bansal (supra) and according to

the petitioner, the same principle has been followed

subsequently in Ram Kishor Arora(supra) and

Prabir Purkayastha, but in Pankaj Bansal (supra)

the Apex Court was dealing an issue under PML Act,

2002, however, in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) after

noticing the rulings in a host of citations including the

ruling of Pankaj Bansal (supra), the Apex Court while

recording conclusion in Paragraph-66 for its

applicability to all the offences under all the statutes

BLAPL Nos.10846, 12759 of 2025 & 1880 of 2026

Page 17 of 28

including the offences in IPC has further held in

Paragraphs-67 & 68 which reads as follows:-

67. After having come to the above

conclusion, it is pertinent to note that the

provision of law under Section 50 of CrPC

(Section 47 of BNSS 2023) does not

provide for a specific mode of or time

frame for communication of the grounds

of arrest to the person arrested. This Court

in Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of

Delhi); (2024) 8 SCC 254 held that the

grounds of arrest be conveyed to the arrestee

in writing in all offences at the earliest, which

means it need not be given at the time of

arrest but within a reasonable time thereafter,

for offences under all the statutes, which

period would be as has been laid down above

in this order.

68. We are cognizant that there existed no

consistent or binding requirement mandating

written communication of the grounds of

arrest for all the offences . Holding as

above, in our view, would ensure

implementation of the constitutional rights

provided to an arrestee as engrafted under

Article 22 of the Constitution of India in an

effective manner. Such clarity on obligation

would avoid uncertainty in the administration

of criminal justice. The ends of fairness and

legal discipline therefore demand that this

procedure as affirmed above shall govern

arrests “henceforth”.

In addition, the petitioner relies upon the

decision in Dr. Rajinder Rajan (supra) in which Mihir

Rajesh Shah (supra) has been applied, but the

BLAPL Nos.10846, 12759 of 2025 & 1880 of 2026

Page 18 of 28

principle that has been laid down in Paragraph-68 of

Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) has not been

distinguished in Dr. Rajinder Rajan (supra) . Besides,

the petitioner also relies upon the decision in Brijesh

Kothia Vrs. State NCT of Delhi2026;DHC;4222 (Bail

Application No. 439 of 2026) disposed of on 13.05.2026

wherein a single Bench of Delhi High Court has not

distinguished the earlier decision of the Division Bench

of said High Court in Karan Singh Vrs. State NCT of

Delhi; 2026 SCC OnLine Del. 282, even after

noticing the same. In view of the discussions made

hereinabove and applying the law laid down by Apex

Court in Paragraphs-67 & 68 of Mihir Rajesh Shah

(supra), this Court is of the humble view that

communication of grounds of arrest to the arrestee in

writing may operate prospectively to the arrest on and

from the date of pronouncement of judgment in Mihir

Rajesh Shah (supra) which was delivered on

06.11.2025, but in no circumstance, the total non-

compliance of Sec. 47 of BNSS/Article 22(1) of the

BLAPL Nos.10846, 12759 of 2025 & 1880 of 2026

Page 19 of 28

Constitution of India is permissible which would vitiates

the arrest and remand even prior to 06.11.2025 for

non-compliance in terms of the provision of law.

8. Even otherwise, coming to the compliance

of Sec. 47 of BNSS in this case in the light of law laid

down by Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) , it appears that

the certified copy arrest memo as enclosed in this bail

application indicates the date of arrest of the petitioner-

Susanta Kumar Samal to be 19.03.2025 at about 4.30

PM and the said memo not only contains the signature

of the arrestee and arresting officer in English, but also

it contains the offences for which the petitioner-

Susanta Kumar Samal was arrested. Further, the arrest

memo also discloses that as there is prima facie

evidence against the accused-petitioner for the above

offences, he was arrested. Moreover, the petitioner has

never taken a stand prior to this bail application that he

has not been informed/communicated with grounds of

arrest either in writing or otherwise nor does he say in

any proceeding that he was not informed of the

BLAPL Nos.10846, 12759 of 2025 & 1880 of 2026

Page 20 of 28

grounds of arrest, but the petitioner has in fact

approached this Court on earlier two occasions and also

approached the Court in seisin over the matter,

however, it appears that the petitioner has not taken

any such stand till filing of this bail application. Besides,

the arrest memo also contains the information of the

arrest of the petitioner to his relatives namely Siba

Prasad Samal. In the aforesaid situation and

circumstance and on consideration of the arrest memo,

the plea as advanced by the petitioner for grant of bail

for non-compliance of Sec. 47 of BNSS/Article 22(1) of

Constitution of India merits no consideration and is

accordingly rejected.

9. Reverting back to decide the bail

application of all the three petitioners on merit, there

appears allegation against the petitioners for large

scale financial defalcation from the bank account of the

society, but the society was in fact created for the

development of public of the periphery villages of the

area of mining operation. A careful scrutiny of the

BLAPL Nos.10846, 12759 of 2025 & 1880 of 2026

Page 21 of 28

materials placed on record reveals allegation against

the petitioners for systematic manipulation of records

and forgery of documents and unauthorized withdrawal

of funds of the society. Besides, it is alleged against the

petitioner-Susanta Kumar Samal that he has issued

number of self cheques in his own handwriting and

there appears allegation against him for

misappropriating the society’s fund without accounting

for withdrawals through self cheques and office bearer

cheques. It is also claimed in the investigation by way

of examination of Government Officials, like BDO

Banspal, BDO, Keonjhar Sadar and Regional Manager

OMC that no periphery development has been taken by

the society. It is also found at Paragraph-16.6 of the

charge sheet that so far the payment of 34.65 crores

towards periphery development in mines affected area

during the financial period of 2017-18 to 2023-24, the

investigating agency on scrutiny of the records did not

find any ledger relating to the payment as shown to the

parties under this head, excepting some entries made

BLAPL Nos.10846, 12759 of 2025 & 1880 of 2026

Page 22 of 28

in the tally register which is being maintained since

2022 and yet no voucher was found against the

payments as shown in the tally register and some

attendant-cum-worker payment sheets containing

worker signatures and thumb impression were

produced for verification and such payment sheets were

found to be false/fabricated as it lacks any certification

by the executants of the work or any authority of the

society. Further, the charge sheet also indicates that

the detail address of the workers like father’s name,

village name etc. to whom payments were made have

not been reflected in the payments sheets and no work

order was issued to the executants for the work.

10. It is also stated in the charge sheet that

the President and Secretary are the joint authorized

signatories of the bank accounts of the society and the

petitioner-Manas Ranjan Barik was one of the President

of the society at the relevant time and he had allegedly

signed self cheques with the Secretary and the self

cheques of Rs.12,90,74,000/- (Rupees Twelve Crore

BLAPL Nos.10846, 12759 of 2025 & 1880 of 2026

Page 23 of 28

Ninety Lakh Seventy-Four Thousand) Only was

accordingly withdrawn from the society and the copy of

seized cheques were in fact produced before this Court

in support of such allegation against the petitioner-

Manas Ranjan Barik. It is also alleged that a sum of

Rs.46,37,027/- was credited to the account of the

petitioner-Manas Ranjan Barik vide bank of India

Account No. 541320110000061, 541310100006487 &

UBI Account No. 510101007314171. It is also alleged

that vide resolution dated 12.10.2023 of the Society an

amount of Rs.7,36,74,000/- was stated to have been

given in advance to Sadasiba Samal, Samir Kumar Jena

and Sudhansu Sekhar Nayak towards periphery

development and the Board of Management of the

society has approved the payments for Rs.7,23,84,800,

but during investigation, no periphery development was

found.

11. The specific allegation against the

petitioner-Susanta Kumar Samal is for issuing 51

number of self cheques of the society together with the

BLAPL Nos.10846, 12759 of 2025 & 1880 of 2026

Page 24 of 28

President for a sum of Rs.12,90,74,000/- and a sum of

Rs.82,34,539/- has been transferred to his account

bearing Account No. 541320100000025 maintained at

Bank of India from the account of the society, however,

the allegation against the petitioner-Raju Goswami is

that a sum of Rs.29,60,000/- has been transferred from

the account of the society to the account of the

petitioner-Raju Goswami maintained at HDFC Bank vide

Account No. 50200050479202, but he was neither an

employee nor was a member of the society, however,

as per charge sheet, the petitioner-Raju Goswami is

one of the employee of principal accused Raja @

Soumya Shankar Chakra and he was looking after the

maintenance of all the vehicles working under accused

Raja Chakra both directly and indirectly. Further, the

charge sheet indicates that out of the sum of

Rs.29,60,000/- as credited to the account of the

petitioner-Raju Goswami, a sum of Rs.8,60,000/- has

been withdrawn by accused-Sudhansu Sekhar Nayak on

the direction of principal accused-Raja Chakra; a sum

BLAPL Nos.10846, 12759 of 2025 & 1880 of 2026

Page 25 of 28

of Rs.3,92,000/- has been transferred to the account of

Sankar Minerals (Proprietor principal accused Raja @

Soumya Shankar Chakra); a sum of Rs.5,07,845/- was

transferred through RTGs to the account of Empreo

Prestige Private Ltd., Bhubaneswar at the instance of

Raja Chakra and a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- has been

withdrawn by the petitioner-Raju Goswami himself. The

allegation against the petitioner-Raju Goswami is for

entering into conspiracy with principal accused- Raja @

Soumya Shankar Chakra for misappropriating the

aforesaid amount credited to his account.

12. It, however, appears that the petitioner-

Manas Ranjan Barik has three criminal antecedents vide

Keonjhar Sadar PS Case No. 399 of 2021, Keonjhar

Sadar PS Case No. 325 of 2027 and Keonjhar Sadar PS

Case No. 184 of 2025, whereas petitioner-Susanta

Kumar Samal has one criminal antecedent in Keonjhar

Sadar PS Case No. 317 of 2015, but neither the

petitioner-Manas Ranjan Barik nor the petitioner-

Susanta Kumar Samal has disclosed the details of their

BLAPL Nos.10846, 12759 of 2025 & 1880 of 2026

Page 26 of 28

criminal antecedents in their respective bail

applications, but the petitioner-Raju Goswami has no

criminal antecedent. In the context of non-disclosure of

criminal antecedent, this Court considers it apt to refer

to the decision in Munnesh Vrs. State of Uttar

Pradesh; 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1319, wherein at

Paragraph 9, the Apex Court has held as under: -

“9. xx xx xx, since the petitioner has

suppressed material facts with regard to his

involvement in criminal cases, he is not

entitled to the discretionary relief of bail. xx

xx”.

13. In view of the discussions made hereinabove

and taking into consideration the nature and gravity of

the offences as alleged against the petitioners vis-à-vis

the accusations sought to be brought against them and

regard being had to the materials collected in the course

of investigation against the petitioners and there being

prima facie materials against the petitioners-Manas

Ranjan Barik & Susanta Kumar Samal and the

investigation prima facie revealing the money trail of

serious magnitude and the money of the society being

BLAPL Nos.10846, 12759 of 2025 & 1880 of 2026

Page 27 of 28

not utilized for the purpose of the benefit of its

beneficiaries or for the periphery development of the

villages of area of operation of the mines in terms of the

bye law of the society and taking into account the non-

disclosure of the details of the criminal antecedent by

petitioners- Manas Ranjan Barik and Susanta Kumar

Samal, but considering the allegation appearing against

the petitioner-Raju Goswami being for entering into

conspiracy with co-accused and the petitioner-Raju

Goswami being an employee of principal accused- Raja

@ Soumya Shankar Chakra and the major amount of

money credited to the account of the petitioner-Raju

Goswami being diverted at the instance of principal

accused- Raja @ Soumya Shankar Chakra and charge-

sheet having already submitted with detention of the

petitioner-Raju Goswami in judicial custody since

22.09.2025, this Court while not being inclined to grant

bail to the petitioners-Manas Ranjan Barik and Susanta

Kumar Samal, considers it proper to admit the

petitioner-Raju Goswami to bail.

BLAPL Nos.10846, 12759 of 2025 & 1880 of 2026

Page 28 of 28

14. Hence, the prayer for bail of the

petitioners-Manas Ranjan Barik and Susanta Kumar

Samal stands rejected, whereas the prayer for bail of

the Petitioner-Raju Goswami stands allowed and he be

allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bonds of

Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only with two

solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction

of the learned Court in seisin of the case on such terms

and conditions as deem fit and proper by it.

15. Accordingly, the three BLAPLs stand

disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as

per Rules. A soft copy of this order be immediately

communicated to the concerned Court, who shall

afterwards communicate the same to the concerned Jail

through e-mail for reference.

(G. Satapathy)

Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack,

Dated the 22

nd

day of May, 2026/Jayakrushna