As per case facts, an FIR was filed by an SBI Regional Manager against numerous borrowers for availing Xpress Credit loans using fake employment records. These loans were sanctioned across ...
ABLAPL Nos.8803, 5590, 5672, 5909, 6300, 6335, 6337,
6352, 6510, 6513, 6528, 6563, 6719, 6896, 6900, 7546 and
7760 of 2026
Page 1 of 48
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
,
ABLAPL Nos.8803 of 2026
CNR Nos. ODHC010551762026
with
ABLAPL Nos.5590, 5672, 5909, 6300, 6335, 6337,
6352, 6510, 6513, 6528, 6563, 6719, 6896, 6900,
7546 and 7760 of 2026
(CNR Nos. ODHC010363312026, ODHC010370342026,
ODHC010370522026, ODHC010414032026, ODHC010414592026,
ODHC010414622026, ODHC010416442026, ODHC010408842026,
ODHC010415242026, ODHC010422542026, ODHC010422652026,
ODHC010424112026, ODHC010437672026, ODHC010440752026,
ODHC010472502026 and ODHC010471402026 respectively)
In the matter of applications under Section 482 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
…
Narendra Pradhan
(In ABLAPL No.8803 of 2026)
Debasmita Ram
(In ABLAPL No.5590 of 2026)
Dilip Meher
(In ABLAPL No.5672 of 2026)
Bharati Nayak
(In ABLAPL No.5909 of 2026)
Madhusmita Samal
(In ABLAPL No.6300 of 2026)
Bhagyabati Gahan
(In ABLAPL No.6335 of 2026)
Pruthyraj Das
(In ABLAPL No.6337 of 2026)
Vaishali
(In ABLAPL No.6352 of 2026)
Smaranika Bhal
(In ABLAPL No.6510 of 2026)
ABLAPL/8803/2026
ODHC010551762026
2026:OHC:81
ABLAPL Nos.8803, 5590, 5672, 5909, 6300, 6335, 6337,
6352, 6510, 6513, 6528, 6563, 6719, 6896, 6900, 7546 and
7760 of 2026
Page 2 of 48
P.S. Biswa Bikash Mohanty
(In ABLAPL No.6513 of 2026)
Suresh Kumar Sahoo
(In ABLAPL No.6528 of 2026)
Santosh Kumar Panda
(In ABLAPL No.6563 of 2026)
Debasish @ Debasis Behera
(In ABLAPL No.6719 of 2026)
Jogendra Nayak
(In ABLAPL No.6896 of 2026)
Diptimayee Behera
(In ABLAPL No.6900 of 2026)
Smrutiranjan Sethy
(In ABLAPL No.7546 of 2026)
Abhaya Kumar Panigrahi
(In ABLAPL No.7760 of 2026)
…
Petitioners
-versus-
State of Odisha(EOW)
… Opp. Party
Advocate(s) Appeared in this case
For Petitioners - Mr. L. Samantaray, Sr. Advocate
along with Mr. B.P. Pradhan,
Advocate
(In ABLAPL Nos.6528 & 6563 of
2026)
Mr. M.K. Chand, Advocate
(In ABLAPL Nos.8803, 6335,
6337, 6513 & 6896 of 2026)
Mr. R.K. Mallick, Advocate
(In ABLAPL Nos.5672, 5909 &
6510 of 2026)
Mr. P. Mohapatra, Advocate
(In ABLAPL No.5590 of 2026)
ABLAPL Nos.8803, 5590, 5672, 5909, 6300, 6335, 6337,
6352, 6510, 6513, 6528, 6563, 6719, 6896, 6900, 7546 and
7760 of 2026
Page 3 of 48
Mr. B.N. Bhol, Advocate
(In ABLAPL No.6300 of 2026)
Dr. S.K. Kanungo, Advocate
(In ABLAPL No.6352 of 2026)
Mr. T.K. Mohanty, Advocate
(In ABLAPL No.6719 of 2026)
Mr. S. Panigrahi, Advocate
(In ABLAPL No.6900 of 2026)
Mr. M.B. Smrutiranjan, Advocate
(In ABLAPL No.7546 of 2026)
Mr. C.R. Satapathy, Advocate
(In ABLAPL No.7760 of 2026)
For Opp. Party - Mr. S. Panigrahi,
Addl. Standing Counsel (In all
ABLAPLs)
CORAM :
MR. JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
----------------------------------------------------------------
DATE OF HEARING : 27.08.2026
DATE OF JUDGEMENT : 02.09.2026
----------------------------------------------------------------
V. Narasingh, J.
1. Since all the ABLAPLs relate to EOW,
Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No.8 of 2026, on the
consent of the parties, they are taken up together
and are disposed of by this common judgment.
ABLAPL Nos.8803, 5590, 5672, 5909, 6300, 6335, 6337,
6352, 6510, 6513, 6528, 6563, 6719, 6896, 6900, 7546 and
7760 of 2026
Page 4 of 48
2. Heard learned Senior Counsel and learned
counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsel for
the State.
3. The Petitioners are seeking pre-arrest bail in
connection with C.T. Case No.8 of 2026 and C.T.
Case No.177 of 2026 respectively, pending on the
file of the learned O.P.I.D., Cuttack and learned
S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar respectively, arising out of
E.O.W. Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No.8 of 2026, for
commission of offences punishable under Sections
409
1
/420
2
/467
3
/468
4
/471
5
/120-B
6
of the I.P.C.
1
409. Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker,
merchant or agent .—Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with
property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public
servant or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor,
broker, attorney or agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of
that property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or wi th
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten
years, and shall also be liable to fine.
2
420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property .—
Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to
deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the
whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or
sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
ABLAPL Nos.8803, 5590, 5672, 5909, 6300, 6335, 6337,
6352, 6510, 6513, 6528, 6563, 6719, 6896, 6900, 7546 and
7760 of 2026
Page 5 of 48
4. On the written complaint of the informant,
working as Regional Manager, SBI, RBO,
Bhubaneswar (South), the FIR in question was
instituted against 282 different individual
borrowers, who had availed Xpress Credit loans
(personal) during the period from May, 2022 to
3
467. Forgery of valuable security, will, etc. —Whoever forges a
document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an
authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any
person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to recei ve the
principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any
money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document
purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment
of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable
property or valuable security, shall be punished with [imprisonment for
life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
4
468. Forgery for purpose of cheating . —Whoever commits forgery,
intending that the document [or electronic record] forged shall be used
for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment o f
either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall
also be liable to fine.
5
471. Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record.
—Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or
electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged
document or electronic record, shall be punished in the same manner as
if he had forged such document or electronic record.
6
120-B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy . — (1) Whoever is a
party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable wi th
death, [imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term o f
two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this
Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same
manner as if he had abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a crimina l
conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not
exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.
ABLAPL Nos.8803, 5590, 5672, 5909, 6300, 6335, 6337,
6352, 6510, 6513, 6528, 6563, 6719, 6896, 6900, 7546 and
7760 of 2026
Page 6 of 48
November, 2023, on production of fake/fabricated
records claiming themselves to be employees of
various organizations from different branches of the
SBI.
The details of the said branches run thus:
SBI
Rail Vihar Branch (150 loans)
Fortune Tower Branch (115 loans)
Patia Branch (8 loans)
Damana Branch (9 loans)
5. Allegations were made also against the
middlemen, who assisted in preparing fake
documents for financial gains. It is alleged that
such defalcation of public money took place on
account of violation of all established norms by the
bank officials in connivance with others and, in the
process, excluding interest and other charges, the
outstanding amount involved on account of the said
ABLAPL Nos.8803, 5590, 5672, 5909, 6300, 6335, 6337,
6352, 6510, 6513, 6528, 6563, 6719, 6896, 6900, 7546 and
7760 of 2026
Page 7 of 48
loans is to the tune of Rs.6,88,29,323/- (Rupees
Six Crore Eighty-Eight Lakhs Twenty-Nine
Thousand Three Hundred Twenty-Three only).
6. It is the allegation of the prosecution that, in
sanctioning the said loans, the SBI Xpress Credit
circular was followed in complete breach.
7. It is apt to note that the chargesheet deals
with the procedure for sanction of Xpress Credit
Loan Scheme formulated in April 2004 in the form
of pre-approved loan to employees of leading PSUs
and Government organizations.
The relevant extract regarding the Scheme
as stated in the charge sheet is culled out
hereunder;
“xxx xxx xxx
18.8. That, during investigation of the case,
certified true copies of Master Circular on Xpress
ABLAPL Nos.8803, 5590, 5672, 5909, 6300, 6335, 6337,
6352, 6510, 6513, 6528, 6563, 6719, 6896, 6900, 7546 and
7760 of 2026
Page 8 of 48
Credit updated up to 28.02.2022 regarding
procedure of sanction of Xpress Credit loan has
been seized from the Somanath Jena, Dy.
Manager, State Bank of India, RBO-II,
Bhubaneswar (South). After going through
Master Circular on Xpress Credit, it has been
ascertained that Xpress Credit scheme was
formulated in April 2004 in the form of pre-
approved loan, to the employees of leading
PSUs and Govt. Organizations. The employers of
Central and State Govt., Defence & Paramilitary
Forces, Quasi-Govt., Central PSUs & State
PSUs, Educational Institutions of National
Repute (institutions under SBI Scholar Loan
Scheme) Corporates, Govt. (central &
State)/Govt. Aided/Semi-Govt. Schools and
Colleges are eligible for Xpress Credit scheme
and the applicants must have maintained Salary
Packaged Accounts with SBI. The minimum net
monthly income (NMI) of the employee should
be Rs. 15,000 & upto Rs. 1 lakh. The loan
amount of Xpress Credit Scheme (Minimum
Loan Amount Rs. 25,000 and maximum loan
amount: Rs. 30 lacs subject to 24 times of NMI
& EMI/NMI ratio<= 50% for Silver & Gold
ABLAPL Nos.8803, 5590, 5672, 5909, 6300, 6335, 6337,
6352, 6510, 6513, 6528, 6563, 6719, 6896, 6900, 7546 and
7760 of 2026
Page 9 of 48
variant salary package customers & EMI/NMI
ratio<= 55% for Diamond variant salary
package customers). The repayment period for
Govt. Salary Package customers will be
maximum 72 months or residual service period,
whichever is less and for Corporate Salary
Package customers will be maximum 72 months
or residual service period whichever is less and
the loan should be repaid by the age of 60
years. Penal interest @2% p.m. would be
charged (Irrespective of loan amount) over and
above the applicable interest rate on the
overdue amount for the period of default. If part
instalment or part EMI remains overdue, then
penal interest will not be levied.
18.9. That, during investigation of the case, it
is further revealed that as per Master Circular
on Xpress Credit, the following documents will
be obtained before sanction of the loan: -
A. Application cum appraisal form generated
from RLMS along with the photograph of the
borrower duly attested by the authorized
official.
B. The branch will satisfy itself about the
customer regarding compliance with KYC
ABLAPL Nos.8803, 5590, 5672, 5909, 6300, 6335, 6337,
6352, 6510, 6513, 6528, 6563, 6719, 6896, 6900, 7546 and
7760 of 2026
Page 10 of 48
norms by calling for the following
documents, a Xerox copy of which will be
retained by the branch duly attested by the
Apprising/Sanctioning Officer:
i. PAN or Form 60.
ii. At least one copy of the Officially Valid
Documents mentioned below, as proof of
his/her identity and current address:-
Passport
Driving License
Proof of Possession of Aadhaar
Number
Voter ID card
Job card
A report duly signed by the verification
agency or by officer/staff in other places (where
verification agency approved by the Bank is not
available) should be complied, based on the
verification of the borrower's residential and
office address as given in the loan application
by visiting the residence of the borrower and
where the verification is not outsourced, the
Branch staff must do the verification and the
report should be kept along with the loan
documents. The disbursement should never be
ABLAPL Nos.8803, 5590, 5672, 5909, 6300, 6335, 6337,
6352, 6510, 6513, 6528, 6563, 6719, 6896, 6900, 7546 and
7760 of 2026
Page 11 of 48
done in cash. It will be only by credit to the
borrower's salary account. That, the SBI Branch
Managers of Rail Vihar, Fortune Tower, Patia
and Damana Chhaka Branch have grossly failed
to observe the mandate prescribed for sanction
and disbursement of SBI Xpress Credit Loan
Circular Dtd. 28.02.2022.
xxx xxx xxx”
8. It is the submission of the learned Senior
Counsel and learned counsel for the Petitioners
that, since charge sheet has already been filed and
the entire investigation is based on documentary
evidence, there is no justification for the
prosecution to oppose the prayer of the Petitioners
for anticipatory bail.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the State,
Mr. Panigrahi submits that this is a well-
orchestrated white-collar crime and no leniency
ought to be shown to the offenders and in opposing
ABLAPL Nos.8803, 5590, 5672, 5909, 6300, 6335, 6337,
6352, 6510, 6513, 6528, 6563, 6719, 6896, 6900, 7546 and
7760 of 2026
Page 12 of 48
the prayer for pre-arrest bail, he has relied on the
following judgments;
i. P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of
Enforcement
7
ii. Directorate of Enforcement v. P.V.
Prabhakar Rao
8
iii. Y.S. Jaganmohon Reddy vs. CBI
9
iv. State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji
Porwal
10
v. Nimmagadda Prasad v. CBI
11
10. The rival contentions have to be tested on
the touchstone of the recent dictum of the Apex
Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil v.
Central Bureau of Investigation & another
12
,
that anticipatory bail is a species of post-arrest bail
7
P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24.
8
Directorate of Enforcement v. P.V. Prabhakar Rao, (1997) 6 SCC 647.
9
Y.S. Jaganmohon Reddy vs. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439.
10
State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal, (1987) 2 SCC 364.
11
Nimmagadda Prasad vs. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 466.
12
Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 452
ABLAPL Nos.8803, 5590, 5672, 5909, 6300, 6335, 6337,
6352, 6510, 6513, 6528, 6563, 6719, 6896, 6900, 7546 and
7760 of 2026
Page 13 of 48
and all the grounds which are germane for grant of
post-arrest bail ought to be taken into account for
grant of pre-arrest bail as well.
11. So far as filing of charge sheet is concerned,
it is submitted by the learned counsel for the State,
Mr. Panigrahi, on instruction, that five of the
accused persons, namely, Smt. Baishakhi Saha,
Smt. Sarita Paikray, Smt. Charubala Dandasena,
Smruti Ranjan Mohanty, Pradipta Kumar Lenka
were taken into custody. Keeping in view the
statutory stipulation of filing the charge sheet qua
the accused who is in custody, the same has been
filed while keeping the investigation open under
Section 193(9)
13
of the BNSS, inter alia, to collect
further money trail, etc.
13
193. Report of police officer on completion of investigation .—
(9) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further
investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-section
(3) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such
investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further
ABLAPL Nos.8803, 5590, 5672, 5909, 6300, 6335, 6337,
6352, 6510, 6513, 6528, 6563, 6719, 6896, 6900, 7546 and
7760 of 2026
Page 14 of 48
12. It is submitted that custodial interrogation of
the Petitioners is essential, inter alia, to unearth the
quantum of embezzlement, source of forgery,
money trail, complicity/involvement of other
accused persons as well as the involvement of
influential persons.
13. So far as Petitioner- Narendra Pradhan in
ABLAPL No.8803 of 2026 is concerned, it is
submitted by the learned counsel that the Petitioner
(Narendra Pradhan) is a businessman and he has
been unnecessarily sought to be entangled in the
case at hand, though he is neither an employee of
the Bank nor a loanee.
evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a
further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form as t he
State Government may, by rules, provide; and the provisions of sub-
sections (3) to (8) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such
report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under
sub-section (3):
Provided that further investigation during the trial may be
conducted with the permission of the Court trying the case and the
same shall be completed within a period of ninety days which may be
extended with the permission of the Court.
ABLAPL Nos.8803, 5590, 5672, 5909, 6300, 6335, 6337,
6352, 6510, 6513, 6528, 6563, 6719, 6896, 6900, 7546 and
7760 of 2026
Page 15 of 48
At the first brush, such submission appears
to be very attractive.
The prosecution has placed on record that,
during analysis of the loan accounts and SB
accounts of 282 borrowers, as noted above, it was
ascertained that, out of the disbursed loan amount,
a significant amount has been transferred to
different accounts, who are not bank employees.
Learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Panigrahi
submits that these accounts have been identified as
accounts of the brokers and on money trail of the
loanees accounts, it has come to the fore that an
amount of Rs.1,53,000/- has been transferred to
the account No.20307480933, which stands in the
name of the present Petitioner (Narendra Pradhan)
with State Bank of India and the money has been
transferred from two of the loanees namely, Naresh
ABLAPL Nos.8803, 5590, 5672, 5909, 6300, 6335, 6337,
6352, 6510, 6513, 6528, 6563, 6719, 6896, 6900, 7546 and
7760 of 2026
Page 16 of 48
Sahoo and Sasmita Pradhan. Hence, the submission
that the Petitioner has absolutely no link with the
alleged offence is ex facie not tenable.
Such money trail finds place in paragraph-
18.17 of the final form. The name of the Petitioner
(Narendra Pradhan) is at Serial No.3 of the list of
12 brokers appearing in the said paragraph.
14. So far as Petitioner (Debasmita Ram) in
ABLAPL No.5590 of 2026 is concerned, she was the
then Branch Manager , SBI, Rail Vihar Branch,
from May, 2022 to November, 2023, and had
sanctioned 142 Xpress Credit Loans and
processed/recommended 8 Xpress Credit Loans
without compliance with important aspects of the
proposal, i.e., KYC of the borrowers, and entered
the details in RLMS and recommended the loans.
ABLAPL Nos.8803, 5590, 5672, 5909, 6300, 6335, 6337,
6352, 6510, 6513, 6528, 6563, 6719, 6896, 6900, 7546 and
7760 of 2026
Page 17 of 48
The investigation reveals that, because of
the Petitioner (Debasmita Ram), the Bank
sustained a loss to the tune of Rs.6.70 crores in as
many as 150 accounts at Rail Vihar Branch.
It is apt to note that the co-accused
Baishakhi Saha, the then Service Manager of SBI,
Rail Vihar Branch, Sarita Paikray, the then Branch
Manager of Damana Chhack Branch, and Charubala
Dandasena, the then Service Manager of Damana
Chhack Branch, were taken into custody.
The irregularities, which were found in the
sanction of the loans, as highlighted by the
prosecution, run thus:
“xxx xxx xxx
i) Account transferred, converted to
Corporate Salary Package (CSP) on same day or
in few days of transfer.
ii) Account conversation and loan sanction
also happened immediately.
ABLAPL Nos.8803, 5590, 5672, 5909, 6300, 6335, 6337,
6352, 6510, 6513, 6528, 6563, 6719, 6896, 6900, 7546 and
7760 of 2026
Page 18 of 48
iii) Salary slips, employment offer letters,
employment confirmation letters and bank
account statements relating to the Borrower's
employment have not been properly scrutinized
before processing the loans.
iv) Pre-sanction survey of visiting
residence/workplace of borrower were neither
done by the Branch Manager nor by the Service
Manager cum recommending official.
v) Several Xpress Credit loans have been
given to borrowers with designation like Driver,
Security Guard, Helper, Cook etc. Employed in
Private Companies under CSP while the nature
of job is purely temporary.
vi) Allocated budget for Xpress Credit loans
for the year 2022-23 was Rs.2.00 Crores and
the Branch achieved the net growth of 6 times
of the budget i.e. Rs.13.83 Crores without
approval of the Controller.
xxx xxx xxx ”
15. It is the submission of the learned counsel
for the Petitioner that, at best, it can be said to be
an irregularity in the sanctioning process, as the
Petitioner bona fide believed the officials who were
ABLAPL Nos.8803, 5590, 5672, 5909, 6300, 6335, 6337,
6352, 6510, 6513, 6528, 6563, 6719, 6896, 6900, 7546 and
7760 of 2026
Page 19 of 48
to enquire about the genuineness of the documents
submitted for sanction of loan and on the basis of
their recommendation, the loans were granted. It is
also submitted that, taking into account that the
Petitioner (Debasmita Ram) is a lady, she may be
protected by pre-arrest bail, since there is no
chance of her absconding and there is no allegation
of her not cooperating with the investigation.
16. So far as Petitioner (Dilip Meher) in ABLAPL
No.5672 of 2026 is concerned, he was posted as a
Manager of fortune Tower Branch from 09.07.2021
to 22.06.2024 and, during his tenure, 13 Xpress
Credit loans were sanctioned. The allegation is that
there was no pre-sanction inspection and
verification of the KYC and, because of the action
and inaction of the Petitioner, the Bank sustained a
loss to the tune of Rs.6.01 crores.
ABLAPL Nos.8803, 5590, 5672, 5909, 6300, 6335, 6337,
6352, 6510, 6513, 6528, 6563, 6719, 6896, 6900, 7546 and
7760 of 2026
Page 20 of 48
17. So far as Petitioner (Bharati Nayak) in
ABLAPL No.5909 of 2026 is concerned, she was
posted as Deputy Manager from 29.09.2021 to
19.07.2023 and, during her tenure, 97 Xpress
Credit loans were granted to loanees claiming to be
employees of TPCODL, Aditya Food, Media @ Metro
Satellite City, Hanspal, Jindal Steels and Arati
Steels. The salary slips were all found to be fake
and the loss to the Bank was to the tune of Rs.5.05
crores.
18. So far as Petitioner (Madhusmita Samal) in
ABLAPL No.6300 of 2026 is concerned, she was
posted as Manager/Deputy Manager of Patia Branch
from 08.09.2023 to 27.02.2024 at Patia Branch and
was involved in the recommendation of 3 Xpress
Credit loans, causing loss to the Bank to the tune of
Rs.19,70,000/-.
ABLAPL Nos.8803, 5590, 5672, 5909, 6300, 6335, 6337,
6352, 6510, 6513, 6528, 6563, 6719, 6896, 6900, 7546 and
7760 of 2026
Page 21 of 48
19. So far as Petitioner (Bhagyabati Gahan)
in ABLAPL No.6335 of 2026 is concerned, it is
submitted that from the account of a broker,
namely, P.S. Biswa Bikash Mohanty, there has been
a money trail to the account of the Petitioner of
Rs.26,000/- on 05.11.2022 and Rs.95,000/- on
29.03.2023 from the said account. It is the case of
the prosecution that she is a close associate of one
of the co-accused, Pruthyraj Das, who has
constantly been in touch with the broker, co-
accused P.S. Biswa Bikash Mohanty.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for
the Petitioner that the Petitioner (Bhagyabati
Gahan) is a victim of the circumstances and it is
stated, relying on the charge sheet, that an amount
of Rs.4,48,750/- was transferred to the account of
the said P.S. Biswa Bikash Mohanty, whose serial
ABLAPL Nos.8803, 5590, 5672, 5909, 6300, 6335, 6337,
6352, 6510, 6513, 6528, 6563, 6719, 6896, 6900, 7546 and
7760 of 2026
Page 22 of 48
number appears at Sl. No.4 in paragraph-18.17.
Considering the meagre amounts which had come
to the account of the Petitioner, who is a lady, she
may be protected by pre-arrest bail.
20. So far as Petitioner (Pruthyraj Das) in
ABLAPL No.6337 of 2026 is concerned, it is the
allegation of the prosecution that he is actively
involved in the fraud relating to all the accounts
and an amount of Rs.4,48,750/- has been
transferred to the account of the co-accused P.S.
Biswa Bikash Mohanty and from his account an
amount of Rs.4,25,500/- in 12 tranches has been
transferred to the account of the Petitioner. Hence,
prima facie, the Petitioner has nexus with the said
accused P.S. Biswa Bikash Mohanty, which is also
borne out from the analysis of the CDR.
ABLAPL Nos.8803, 5590, 5672, 5909, 6300, 6335, 6337,
6352, 6510, 6513, 6528, 6563, 6719, 6896, 6900, 7546 and
7760 of 2026
Page 23 of 48
Per contra, it is submitted by the learned
counsel for the Petitioner that there is no
acceptable proof regarding the involvement of the
Petitioner. Hence, he should be protected by pre-
arrest bail.
21. So far as Petitioner (Vaishali) in ABLAPL
No.6352 of 2026 is concerned, she was posted as
Branch Manager of Patia Branch and, during her
incumbency, 5 Xpress Credit Loans were granted to
employees of SIS Ltd. and the Department of Post
on the basis of salary certificates found to be fake,
resulting in the Bank sustaining a loss to the tune
of Rs.14,08,000/-. Like the Petitioners who are also
bank employees, it is submitted by the learned
counsel for the Petitioner that, since she acted bona
fide on the basis of the field reports, no complicity
ABLAPL Nos.8803, 5590, 5672, 5909, 6300, 6335, 6337,
6352, 6510, 6513, 6528, 6563, 6719, 6896, 6900, 7546 and
7760 of 2026
Page 24 of 48
can be attached to her and, she being a lady, may
be protected by pre-arrest bail.
Learned counsel for the State reiterates
that, prima facie because of the connivance of the
Petitioner, the Bank sustained loss. Hence, no
leniency ought to be shown.
22. So far as Petitioner (Smaranika Bhal) in
ABLAPL No.6510 of 2026 is concerned, she was
posted as Branch Manager of Patia Branch from
18.08.2020 to 25.04.2023 and thereafter as Branch
Manager-cum-Chief Manager from 26.04.2023 to
31.05.2023. Five Xpress Credit loans were
sanctioned to persons claiming to be employees of
SIS and other companies, whose salary slips were
found to be fake. It is alleged that there was no
pre-sanction survey and the loss to the Bank was to
the tune of Rs.14,08,000/-.
ABLAPL Nos.8803, 5590, 5672, 5909, 6300, 6335, 6337,
6352, 6510, 6513, 6528, 6563, 6719, 6896, 6900, 7546 and
7760 of 2026
Page 25 of 48
The stand of the Petitioner is similar to that
of her colleagues.
Per contra, it is submitted by the learned
counsel for the State that the Petitioner was also a
Chief Manager. Hence, she cannot claim any
immunity and, taking into account the nature of the
allegations, the submission that she has ex-facie no
complicity cannot be accepted.
23. So far as Petitioner-P.S. Biswa Bikash
Mohanty in ABLAPL No.6513 of 2026 is concerned,
it is the allegation of the prosecution that the
Petitioner is actively involved in facilitating fake
loans to be granted to 282 loanees, as already
noted. An amount of Rs.4,48,750/- has been
transferred to his account from the loanees and his
name appears at Serial No.4 of paragraph-18.17 of
the charge sheet.
ABLAPL Nos.8803, 5590, 5672, 5909, 6300, 6335, 6337,
6352, 6510, 6513, 6528, 6563, 6719, 6896, 6900, 7546 and
7760 of 2026
Page 26 of 48
Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits
that it is a legitimate income earned on account of
the services provided and, taking into account the
nature of the allegations, the Petitioner may be
protected by pre-arrest bail.
24. So far as Petitioner (Suresh Kumar Sahoo)
in ABLAPL No.6528 of 2026 is concerned, he was
posted as Chief Manager of Fortune Tower Branch
from 15.05.2023 to 17.06.2024 and, during his
tenure, had sanctioned 13 Xpress Credit loans,
which were found to be on the basis of unverified
KYC, causing loss to the tune of Rs.83,33,300/- to
the Bank.
The stand of the Petitioner is that, as per the
norms, he had to rely on the details provided and it
was not his job to make verification. Hence, no
complicity can be attributed to him.
ABLAPL Nos.8803, 5590, 5672, 5909, 6300, 6335, 6337,
6352, 6510, 6513, 6528, 6563, 6719, 6896, 6900, 7546 and
7760 of 2026
Page 27 of 48
Such submission is refuted by the learned
counsel for the State.
25. So far as Petitioner (Santosh Kumar Panda)
in ABLAPL No.6563 of 2026 is concerned, he was
posted as Chief Manager of Fortune Tower Branch
from 01.08.2022 to 28.05.2023 and, during his
tenure, he sanctioned 13 Xpress Credit Loans to
loanees claiming to be employees of TPCODL. It is
alleged that, because of his action and inaction, the
Bank sustained a loss to the tune of Rs.55,17,000/-
Learned counsel for the State opposes the
prayer for pre-arrest bail, rebutting the submission
of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that, to the
best of his ability, he had followed the norms in
sanctioning the loans and, since subsequently it
was found that the documents were fake, he cannot
ABLAPL Nos.8803, 5590, 5672, 5909, 6300, 6335, 6337,
6352, 6510, 6513, 6528, 6563, 6719, 6896, 6900, 7546 and
7760 of 2026
Page 28 of 48
be saddled with the blame and may be protected by
pre-arrest bail.
26. So far as Petitioner-Debasish @ Debasis
Behera in ABLAPL No.6719 of 2026 is concerned,
the allegation against him is that he was a
facilitator for grant of loans on the basis of fake
documents. An amount of Rs.35,000/- has been
transferred from the account of the loanee. His
name appears at Serial No.11 under paragraph-
18.17 of the charge sheet dealing with the money
trail to the accounts of the middlemen/brokers.
It is the stand of the learned counsel for the
Petitioner that no complicity can be attached to the
role played by the Petitioner and, hence, he may be
protected by pre-arrest bail.
Learned counsel for the State opposes the
prayer for pre-arrest bail in view of the money trail.
ABLAPL Nos.8803, 5590, 5672, 5909, 6300, 6335, 6337,
6352, 6510, 6513, 6528, 6563, 6719, 6896, 6900, 7546 and
7760 of 2026
Page 29 of 48
27. So far as Petitioner-Jogendra Nayak in
ABLAPL No.6896 of 2026 is concerned, the
allegation against the said Petitioner is that an
amount of Rs.4,61,704/- has been transferred to
his account from that of 7 loanees, who managed
to get loans sanctioned on the basis of forged
documents.
Per contra, it is submitted by the learned
counsel for the Petitioner that the allegations are
based on surmises. Hence, the Petitioner ought not
to be denied pre-arrest bail.
28. So far as Petitioner (Diptimayee Behera) in
ABLAPL No.6900 of 2026 is concerned, she was
posted as Branch Manager of Patia Branch from
12.06.2023 to 23.06.2024 at Patia Branch, 3
Xpress Credit loans were sanctioned to different
agencies allegedly without verification of their
ABLAPL Nos.8803, 5590, 5672, 5909, 6300, 6335, 6337,
6352, 6510, 6513, 6528, 6563, 6719, 6896, 6900, 7546 and
7760 of 2026
Page 30 of 48
employment details, on account of which the Bank
sustained a loss to the tune of Rs.19,70,000/-.
It is submitted on her behalf that, because
of the duty assigned to a Branch Manager in the
matter of grant of Xpress Credit loans, she having
acted in good faith on the basis of the reports
received from the ground staff, no criminality can
be attached to her action and, she being a lady,
ought to be protected by pre-arrest bail.
29. So far as Petitioner-Smrutiranjan Sethi in
ABLAPL No.7546 of 2026 is concerned, it is the
case of the prosecution that an amount of
Rs.6,90,300/- has been transferred to his account
from that of the beneficiaries. His name appears at
Serial No.6 of paragraph-18.17 of the charge sheet.
It is stated that there is no iota of material to
indicate that the same was on account of his role in
ABLAPL Nos.8803, 5590, 5672, 5909, 6300, 6335, 6337,
6352, 6510, 6513, 6528, 6563, 6719, 6896, 6900, 7546 and
7760 of 2026
Page 31 of 48
facilitating the beneficiaries to avail the loan. It is
his submission that he had not played any role
which enabled the beneficiaries to avail the loans.
He is unnecessarily being hounded and he is
entitled to be protected by pre-arrest bail.
Such submission is opposed by the learned
counsel for the State.
30. So far as Petitioner-Abhaya Kumar Panigrahi
in ABLAPL No.7760 of 2026 is concerned, the
allegation against the Petitioner is that there is a
money trail to his account to the tune of
Rs.2,49,650/- from 5 loanees and, because of the
money trail, there is prima facie material against
him for facilitating such fake loan accounts to be
processed and sanctioned.
Per contra, learned counsel for the Petitioner
submits that there is no material to connect the
ABLAPL Nos.8803, 5590, 5672, 5909, 6300, 6335, 6337,
6352, 6510, 6513, 6528, 6563, 6719, 6896, 6900, 7546 and
7760 of 2026
Page 32 of 48
Petitioner with the alleged fraud. Merely because of
the money trail, it cannot be said that the Petitioner
had a role in the offence as alleged.
31. It is submitted by the learned counsel for
the State that till now the defalcation which has
come to the fore is to the tune of Rs.13.92
Crores. The same relates to fake and fabricated
employment records of beneficiaries as employees
of:
i. Falcon Marine Exports Ltd.
ii. Quess Corp Limited.
iii. Tata Steel Limited.
iv. Satin Credit Care Network Limited.
v. SIS Limited.
vi. Bhusan Power & Steel.
vii. Bajaj Finance Limited and other companies
viii. Aarati Steels Limited.
ix. Aditya Foods and Media.
x. Jindal Stainless Ltd.
xi. TPCODL
xii. Vedanta Limited
xiii. Rohit Ferro Tech. Ltd.
xiv. Shasi Catering Services.
ABLAPL Nos.8803, 5590, 5672, 5909, 6300, 6335, 6337,
6352, 6510, 6513, 6528, 6563, 6719, 6896, 6900, 7546 and
7760 of 2026
Page 33 of 48
xv. Department of Post.
xvi. Team lease Services Limited.
32. It is seen that the Petitioners in ABLAPL Nos.
5590, 6900, 6510, 6352, 6300, 6528, 6563, 5909
and 5672 of 2026 are all employees of the Bank and
the rest of the Petitioners, save and except the
Petitioner in ABLAPL No.6335 of 2026 (Bhagyabati
Gahan), are said to be brokers/middlemen to whose
accounts there is a money trail. The money trail to
their accounts is stated in paragraph 18.17 of the
charge sheet.
The details of the transfer to the brokers'
accounts from the loanees' savings bank accounts, as
mentioned in a tabular form in the above-mentioned
paragraph of the charge sheet, is extracted
hereunder:-
ABLAPL Nos.8803, 5590, 5672, 5909, 6300, 6335, 6337,
6352, 6510, 6513, 6528, 6563, 6719, 6896, 6900, 7546 and
7760 of 2026
Page 34 of 48
ABLAPL Nos.8803, 5590, 5672, 5909, 6300, 6335, 6337,
6352, 6510, 6513, 6528, 6563, 6719, 6896, 6900, 7546 and
7760 of 2026
Page 35 of 48
33. The common thread in the submissions of all the
counsel for the Petitioners who are Managers of the
Bank is that they have acted in their supervisory
capacity and, as such, no complicity can be attached
to them and, since they have firm roots in society
and there is no chance of their escaping or interfering
with the investigation and the investigation being
based on documentary evidence, they ought to be
protected by pre-arrest bail. It is also submitted that,
at best, the same may amount to error of judgment.
33-A. The stand of the Petitioners against whom
the accusation is of being brokers in obtaining the
fake documents and facilitating the grant of loans is
that there is no prima facie material to implicate
them and the only basis is the statement of the co-
accused. It is submitted that, merely because of the
ABLAPL Nos.8803, 5590, 5672, 5909, 6300, 6335, 6337,
6352, 6510, 6513, 6528, 6563, 6719, 6896, 6900, 7546 and
7760 of 2026
Page 36 of 48
money trail, it ought not to be held that their cases
do not merit grant of pre-arrest bail.
34. The unholy nexus between the Bank, the
beneficiaries and the brokers, resulting in siphoning
of public money to the tune of crores, presently
quantified at Rs.13.92 Crores, squarely comes within
the category of economic offence a “white collar
crime” affecting society at large.
No leniency can be shown in such cases, as has
been consistently held by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
Those who are alleged to have plundered the
public exchequer and feasted cannot claim the benefit
of the “exceptional remedy” of pre-arrest bail.
34-A. In this context, this Court can do no better
than to respectfully quote relevant recitals in
paragraphs 18 to 20 of the judgment of the Apex
ABLAPL Nos.8803, 5590, 5672, 5909, 6300, 6335, 6337,
6352, 6510, 6513, 6528, 6563, 6719, 6896, 6900, 7546 and
7760 of 2026
Page 37 of 48
Court in the case of Serious Fraud Investigation
Office v. Aditya Sarda
14
;
“18. Now, so far as anticipatory bail is
concerned, this court has consistently
emphasized that anticipatory bail should not
be granted as a matter of routine, particularly
in serious economic offences, involving large
scale fraud, public money or complex financial
crimes. In P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of
Enforcement ; (2019) 9 SCC 24 , it was
observed as under:
“Grant of anticipatory bail in exceptional
cases
69. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of procedure
of the investigation to secure not only the
presence of the accused but several other
purposes. Power under section 438 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure is an extraordinary
power and the same has to be exercised
sparingly. The privilege of the pre-arrest bail
14
SFIO v. Aditya Sarda, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 764.
ABLAPL Nos.8803, 5590, 5672, 5909, 6300, 6335, 6337,
6352, 6510, 6513, 6528, 6563, 6719, 6896, 6900, 7546 and
7760 of 2026
Page 38 of 48
should be granted only in exceptional cases.
The judicial discretion conferred upon the
court has to be properly exercised after
application of mind as to the nature and
gravity of the accusation; possibility of the
applicant fleeing justice and other factors to
decide whether it is a fit case for grant of
anticipatory bail…
71. Article 21 of the Constitution of India
states that no person shall be deprived of his
life or personal liberty except according to
procedure prescribed by law. However, the
power conferred by article 21 of the
Constitution of India is not unfettered and is
qualified by the later part of the article, i.e., ‘…
except according to a procedure prescribed by
law’. In State of M.P. v. Ram Kishna Balothia;
(1995) 3 SCC 221 , the Supreme Court held
that the right of anticipatory bail is not a part
of article 21 of the Constitution of India and
held as under :
ABLAPL Nos.8803, 5590, 5672, 5909, 6300, 6335, 6337,
6352, 6510, 6513, 6528, 6563, 6719, 6896, 6900, 7546 and
7760 of 2026
Page 39 of 48
‘7.… We find it difficult to accept the
contention that section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure is an integral part of
article 21. In the first place, there was no
provision similar to section 438 in the old
Criminal Procedure Code. The Law
Commission in its 41st report recommended
introduction of a provision for grant of
anticipatory bail. It observed:
“We agree that this would be a useful
advantage. Though we must add that it is in
very exceptional cases that such power
should be exercised.”’
In the light of this recommendation, section
438 was incorporated, for the first time, in the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Looking to the
cautious recommendation of the Law
Commission, the power to grant anticipatory
bail is conferred only on a court of session or
the High Court. Also, anticipatory bail cannot
be granted as a matter of right. It is
essentially a statutory right conferred long
ABLAPL Nos.8803, 5590, 5672, 5909, 6300, 6335, 6337,
6352, 6510, 6513, 6528, 6563, 6719, 6896, 6900, 7546 and
7760 of 2026
Page 40 of 48
after the coming into force of the Constitution.
It cannot be considered as an essential
ingredient of article 21 of the Constitution.
And its non-application to a certain special
category of offences cannot be considered as
violative of article 21.
(emphasis supplied)
72. We are conscious of the fact that the
legislative intent behind the introduction of
section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
is to safeguard the individual's personal liberty
and to protect him from the possibility of being
humiliated and from being subjected to
unnecessary police custody. However, the
court must also keep in view that a criminal
offence is not just an offence against an
individual, rather the larger societal interest is
at stake. Therefore, a delicate balance is
required to be established between the two
rights—safeguarding the personal liberty of an
individual and the societal interest. It cannot
be said that refusal to grant anticipatory bail
ABLAPL Nos.8803, 5590, 5672, 5909, 6300, 6335, 6337,
6352, 6510, 6513, 6528, 6563, 6719, 6896, 6900, 7546 and
7760 of 2026
Page 41 of 48
would amount to denial of the rights conferred
upon the appellant under article 21 of the
Constitution of India…
77. After referring to Siddharam Satlingappa
Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra; (2011) 1 SCC
694 and other judgments and observing that
anticipatory bail can be granted only in
exceptional circumstances, in Jai Prakash
Singh v. State of Bihar; (2012) 4 SCC 379, the
Supreme Court held as under :
‘19. Parameters for grant of anticipatory
bail in a serious offence are required to be
satisfied and further while granting such
relief, the court must record the reasons
therefor. Anticipatory bail can be granted
only in exceptional circumstances where the
court is prima facie of the view that the
applicant has falsely been enroped in the
crime and would not misuse his liberty.
(See D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokaran;
(2007) 4 SCC 434, State of
Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S.
ABLAPL Nos.8803, 5590, 5672, 5909, 6300, 6335, 6337,
6352, 6510, 6513, 6528, 6563, 6719, 6896, 6900, 7546 and
7760 of 2026
Page 42 of 48
Husain; (2008) 1 SCC 213 and Union of
India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal; (2008) 13
SCC 305.’
Economic offences
78. Power under section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure being an extraordinary
remedy, has to be exercised sparingly; more
so, in cases of economic offences. Economic
offences stand as a different class as they
affect the economic fabric of the society.
In Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok
Kumar Jain; (1998) 2 SCC 105, it was held
that in economic offences, the accused is not
entitled to anticipatory bail.”
19. In Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. Central
Bureau of Investigation; (2013) 7 SCC 439, it
was observed as under:
“34. Economic offences constitute a class
apart and need to be visited with a different
approach in the matter of bail. The economic
offences having deep-rooted conspiracies
and involving huge loss of public funds need
ABLAPL Nos.8803, 5590, 5672, 5909, 6300, 6335, 6337,
6352, 6510, 6513, 6528, 6563, 6719, 6896, 6900, 7546 and
7760 of 2026
Page 43 of 48
to be viewed seriously and considered as
grave offences affecting the economy of the
country as a whole and thereby posing
serious threat to the financial health of the
country.
35. While granting bail, the court has to
keep in mind the nature of accusations, the
nature of evidence in support thereof, the
severity of the punishment which conviction
will entail, the character of the accused,
circumstances which are peculiar to the
accused, reasonable possibility of securing
the presence of the accused at the trial,
reasonable apprehension of the witnesses
being tampered with, the larger interests of
the public/State and other similar
considerations.”
20. In Nimmagadda Prasad v. Central Bureau
of Investigation; (2013) 7 SCC 466, it was
observed as under:
“23. Unfortunately, in the last few years,
the country has been seeing an alarming
rise in white-collar crimes, which has
ABLAPL Nos.8803, 5590, 5672, 5909, 6300, 6335, 6337,
6352, 6510, 6513, 6528, 6563, 6719, 6896, 6900, 7546 and
7760 of 2026
Page 44 of 48
affected the fibre of the country's economic
structure. Incontrovertibly, economic
offences have serious repercussions on the
development of the country as a whole.
In State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji
Porwal; (1987) 2 SCC 364this court, while
considering a request of the prosecution for
adducing additional evidence, inter alia,
observed as under :
‘5.… The entire community is
aggrieved if the economic offenders
who ruin the economy of the State are
not brought to book.
A murder may be committed in the heat of
moment upon passions being aroused. An
economic offence is committed with
cool calculation and deliberate design
with an eye on personal profit
regardless of the consequence to the
community. A disregard for the interest
of the community can be manifested
only at the cost of forfeiting the trust
and faith of the community in the
ABLAPL Nos.8803, 5590, 5672, 5909, 6300, 6335, 6337,
6352, 6510, 6513, 6528, 6563, 6719, 6896, 6900, 7546 and
7760 of 2026
Page 45 of 48
system to administer justice in an even-
handed manner without fear of criticism
from the quarters which view white-
collar crimes with a permissive eye
unmindful of the damage done to the
national economy and national
interest.”
(Emphasized)
35. This Court also cannot lose sight of the fact
that accused facing similar charges have been
taken into custody (since released on post-arrest
bail). And, no case has been made out as to why
the present Petitioners are to be ensconced by pre-
arrest bail.
In this context, reference can also be made
to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Aditya Sarda (supra)
14
more particularly
paragraph-23 thereof, wherein the Apex Court has
reiterated that “economic offences constitute a
ABLAPL Nos.8803, 5590, 5672, 5909, 6300, 6335, 6337,
6352, 6510, 6513, 6528, 6563, 6719, 6896, 6900, 7546 and
7760 of 2026
Page 46 of 48
class apart, as they have deep rooted conspiracies
involving huge loss of public funds, and therefore
such offences need to be viewed seriously”.
36. Hence, on a perspicuous analysis of the
allegations against the present Petitioners, vis-à-vis
the materials on record, this Court finds force in the
submission of the learned counsel for the State, Mr.
Panigrahi, ASC, that, if protected by pre-arrest bail,
the investigation will be derailed and serious
prejudice would be caused to the ongoing
investigation.
37. The qualitative response of an accused
protected by pre-arrest bail has been set at rest in
the case of State v. Anil Sharma
15
.
38. So far as the allegations relating to
Petitioner (Bhagyabati Gahan) in ABLAPL No.6335
of 2026 are concerned, there is no direct money
15
State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187.
ABLAPL Nos.8803, 5590, 5672, 5909, 6300, 6335, 6337,
6352, 6510, 6513, 6528, 6563, 6719, 6896, 6900, 7546 and
7760 of 2026
Page 47 of 48
trail to her account and the allegation of the
prosecution is that her complicity is on account of
the amount received by her from the co-accused
P.S. Biswa Bikash Mohanty.
Hence, this Court is of the considered view
that the accusation qua the Petitioner (Bhagyabati
Gahan) in ABLAPL No.6335 of 2026 has to be
segregated while considering the complicity of the
others.
38-A. Accordingly, this Court directs that, in the
event of the arrest of the Petitioner (Bhagyabati
Gahan) in ABLAPL No.6335 of 2026 in connection
with the aforesaid case, she shall be released on
bail by the Arresting Officer on such terms and
conditions as deemed just and proper, with the
further condition that she will cooperate with the
ABLAPL Nos.8803, 5590, 5672, 5909, 6300, 6335, 6337,
6352, 6510, 6513, 6528, 6563, 6719, 6896, 6900, 7546 and
7760 of 2026
Page 48 of 48
investigation, subject to verification of antecedents
of similar nature.
39. So far as the anticipatory bail applications of
the other Petitioners are concerned, this Court does
not find any merit in their prayer for grant of
“exceptional remedy” of pre-arrest bail.
Hence, all the ABLAPLs, except ABLAPL
No.6335 of 2026 (Bhagyabati Gahan), accordingly
stand rejected.
40. Interim order(s) stand vacated.
41. Accordingly, all the ABLAPLs stand disposed
of.
(V. Narasingh)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Dated the 2
nd
September, 2026 /Santoshi
02.09.2026/Uploaded
Login with google
Legal Notes
Add a Note....