BLAPL No.12135 of 2025 Page 1 of 27

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

BLAPL No.12135 of 2025

CNR No.ODHC010825212025

(In the matter of application under Section 483 of

BNSS, 2023).

Ramnarayan Bal … Petitioner

-versus-

State of Orissa … Opposite Party

For Petitioner : Mr. S. Luthra, Sr. Advocate

along with Mr. S. Satapathy,

For Opposite Party

For Informant

:

:

Mr. P.Satapathy, Addl. PP

Mr. S. Agarwal, Sr. Advocate

along with Mr. S.S. Mohanty,

CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:14.08.2026

G. Satapathy, J.

1. This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by

the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with EOW,

Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No. 17 of 2025 corresponding to

C.T. Case No. 20 of 2025 pending in the file of learned

Presiding Officer, Designated Court under OPID Act,

Cuttack, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.

318(4)/319(2)/338/336(3)/340(2)/341(1)/61(2) of BNS.

BLAPL No.12135 of 2025 Page 2 of 27

2. The case against the petitioner arises out of

Bhubaneswar EOW FIR No. 17 dated 28.10.2025 lodged

by one Gobinda Chandra Nayak, who alleged therein

that the petitioner by impersonating himself as an

employee of State Bank of India( in short, the “Bank”)

misrepresented the informant, who is the representative

of the company M/s. The World Ventures Ltd.

(hereinafter referred to as “the company”) for dealing

with mortgaged property of the Bank and induced

him(informant) to purchase the assets, particularly land

and buildings under possession of the Bank at much

lesser price than the market value and believing such

misrepresentation to be true, the informant expressed

his interest to purchase the assets for the company and

accordingly, the petitioner fraudulently executed certain

documents in favour of Mr. Srinibas Sahoo, the Director

of Company to sell the mortgaged property of the Bank

to the company and accordingly, the company

transferred a sum of Rs.14,01,83,039/- on different

dates to the account number given by the petitioner in

BLAPL No.12135 of 2025 Page 3 of 27

the letter of proposal stated to be issued by the Bank,

which was in fact not issued by the Bank for purchase of

six properties of the Bank, but later on, it was

ascertained by the Company that the account number

given by the petitioner is not the account number of

Bank, rather it was the personal account of the

petitioner, whereupon it was found by the company that

the petitioner was not working with the Bank in any

capacity then, but he(petitioner) had executed the

documents by impersonating himself as an employee of

Bank by using the seal of the Bank as genuine and

forging the signatures of DGM (Zone-3) of the Bank

namely Mr. Harihar Pattnaik with fake documents. On

registration of the FIR, the allegation against the

petitioner was investigated into, in the course of which it

was ascertained that the petitioner was working as a

Sales Manager of the “SBI Cap Securities ” at

Bhubaneswar during the year 2014 to 2022 and he was

well aware of the procedure for sell and purchase of the

mortgaged property of the Bank, where the loanees

BLAPL No.12135 of 2025 Page 4 of 27

failed to repay the loan amount. Accordingly, it was

unearthed in the investigation that the petitioner has

misappropriated a sum of Rs.14,01,83,039/- of the

company by fraudulently executing documents without

any authority and producing fake documents with forged

signatures of the authority of the Bank and in the

process, he cheated the company. On conclusion of

investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the

petitioner for commission of offence punishable U/Ss.

318(4)/319(2)/338/336(3)/340(2)/341(1)/61(2) of BNS.

Finding prima facie materials, the petitioner was taken

into custody for commission of above offences, but he

remained unsuccessful in securing his liberty by way of

bail from the Court in seisin over the matter and

thereafter, he is before this Court in this bail application.

3. This Court has heard Mr. Sidharth Luthra,

learned Senior Counsel who is being assisted by Mr.

Subham Satapathy, learned counsel for the petitioner;

Mr. P.Satapathy, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and

Mr.Sidhartha Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel who is

BLAPL No.12135 of 2025 Page 5 of 27

being assisted by Mr. Satya Smruti Mohanty, learned

counsel for the informant in the matter and perused the

record.

4. After having considered the rival submissions

upon perusal of record including the averments taken in

the bail application, the petitioner albeit has sought for

bail mainly on two grounds; such as non-compliance of

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

India and on merits, but this Court before dwelling upon

such issues considers it proper to advert to the conduct

of the petitioner, which is also equally important, even if

the same cannot validate the illegal arrest and remand

of an accused for non-compliance of Sec.47 of BNSS as

claimed by the petitioner in this case. On coming to the

conduct of the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner

has partially disclosed his criminal antecedents in the

bail application by stating therein that he is implicated in

Bhadrak Town P.S. Case No. 264 dated 25.09.2016, but

that too, without disclosing the details of the said case,

however, the petitioner is implicated in five criminal

BLAPL No.12135 of 2025 Page 6 of 27

cases, which was subsequently disclosed by him very

recently on 02.07.2026 by way of comprehensive

affidavit, but the learned State counsel has taken

objection against the petitioner for not disclosing his

antecedent on 19.02.2026 in I.A. No. 127 of 2026,

which was filed for extension interim bail to the

petitioner. When this Court in the course of hearing of

bail application sought for clarification with regard to

true disclosure/partial disclosure of criminal antecedent

of the petitioner in his bail application by confronting the

principle laid down by the Apex Court in Munnesh Vrs.

State of Uttar Pradesh; 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1319

and Zeba Khan Vrs. State of UP and others; 2026

SCC OnLine 188 , Mr. Siddharth Luthra, learned Senior

Counsel for the petitioner has tried to explain that the

details of the antecedents or implication of the petitioner

as known to the petitioner’s pairokar at the time of filing

of bail petition was set out therein, but such explanation

does not appeal to the conscience of the Court, more

particularly when one out of five criminal antecedent of

BLAPL No.12135 of 2025 Page 7 of 27

the petitioner was only disclosed in the bail application

and all the criminal antecedents of the petitioner were

disclosed just a little more than one month before on

03.07.2026 by way of a comprehensive affidavit, even

though the State has taken objection to it on

19.02.2026. On the other hand, in Munnesh (supra)

the Apex Court at paragraph-9 has held thus:-

“9. 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.” Xxxx xxx xx xx.”

In Zeba Khan (supra), the Apex Court at paragraphs-

42, 43, 47 & 48 has been pleased to hold as under:-

“42. It has been consistently emphasized by this

Court that an accused or applicant seeking bail is

under a solemn obligation to make a fair,

complete and candid disclosure of all material

facts having a direct bearing on the exercise of

judicial discretion. Any suppression,

concealment or selective disclosure of such

material facts amounts to an abuse of the

process of law and strikes at the very root

of the administration of criminal justice.

43. In the present case, Respondent No. 2

deliberately concealed his criminal antecedents

before the High Court, both in the petition for

quashing FIR as well as in successive bail

applications. Even before this Court, only partial

disclosure was made in the counter-affidavit,

despite the existence of multiple criminal cases

on record. This conduct cannot be viewed as

an isolated lapse but reflects a growing and

BLAPL No.12135 of 2025 Page 8 of 27

disturbing trend of accused persons

securing discretionary relief by suppressing

material facts.

47. As repeatedly observed by this Court, bail

applications are examined at multiple stages -

from the trial Court to the High Court and

ultimately this Court - where courts are often

constrained to take a prima facie view on

incomplete or selectively presented records.

Non-disclosure of material aspects such as

criminal antecedents, prior bail rejections,

duration of custody, compliance with

constitutional and statutory safeguards, and

the progress of trial may result in the

unwarranted grant of bail , or conversely, the

prolonged incarceration of accused persons

despite substantial custody having already been

undergone.

48. Thus, this Court is of the view that every

petitioner or applicant seeking bail, at any

stage of proceedings, is under an obligation

to disclose all material particulars, including

criminal antecedents and the existence of any

coercive processes such as issuance of non-

bailable warrants, declaration as a proclaimed

offender, or similar proceedings, duly supported

by an affidavit, so as to promote uniformity,

transparency and integrity in bail adjudication.”

5. Be that as it may, the petitioner by way of

comprehensive affidavit has disclosed his implication in

the following five criminal cases:-

(i) Bhadrak Town P.S. Case No. 264 of

2016 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1773 of

2016 pending in the Court of Leamed JMFC,

Bhadrak, for the alleged commission of the

BLAPL No.12135 of 2025 Page 9 of 27

offences U/Ss. 381/406/408/420 of the

I.P.C.,

(ii) Baisinga P.S. Case No. 103 of 2019,

corresponding to C.T. Case No. 258 of 2019

pending in the Court of learned JMFC,

Betnoti, for the alleged commission of the

offences U/S.408/420 of the IPC,

(iii) Colliery P.S. Case No. 372 of 2024,

corresponding to G.R. Case No. 980 of 2024

pending in the Court of learned JMFC(C.T.),

Talcher, for the alleged commission of the

offences U/S. 318(4)/336(2)/336(3)/

340(2)/3(5) of the BNS,

(iv) Bhadrak Town P.S. Case No. 567 of

2025, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2247

of 2025 pending in the Court of learned

SDJM, Bhadrak, for the alleged commission of

the offences U/S.292/296/221/3(5) of the

BNS read with Sec. 3 of the Orissa Fire Works

& Loud Speaker Regulation Act, 1938 & Sec.

182(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 &

(v) Mancheswar P.S. Case No. 49 of

2026, corresponding to C.T. Case No. 165 of

2026 pending in the Court of learned JMFC-II,

Bhubaneswar, for the alleged commission of

the offences U/S. 316(2)/318(4)/

336(2)/61(2) of BNS.

6. No doubt, Mr.Luthra, learned Senior Counsel

has tried to distinguish the objection of suppression of

material facts of implication of the petitioner in other

cases by submitting that the fact as known to the

petitioner’s wife was stated in the bail application at the

BLAPL No.12135 of 2025 Page 10 of 27

relevant time, but subsequently after knowing the

antecedent of the petitioner it was disclosed by way of

comprehensive affidavit and thereby, the disclosure of

antecedent by the petitioner is fair, complete and

candid. Even accepting such submission, this Court when

perused the order sheets of the cases shown as an

antecedent as supplied by the petitioner, it appears that

although the petitioner claims to have not been shown

as an absconder in C.T. Case No. 258 of 2019 arising out

of Baisingha PS Case No. 103 of 2019, but such claim is

found to be incorrect as not only NBWA was issued

against the petitioner on 18.12.2020 in the said case,

but also the charge sheet submitted in that case on

09.02.2021, the petitioner was shown as an absconder,

no matter he was granted bail subsequently after

issuance of NBWA pursuant to an order passed by a

coordinate Bench of this Court in ABLAPL No. 11964 of

2022. The sequence of events as referred to above with

regard to partial disclosure of criminal antecedents by

the petitioner together with submission of charge sheet

BLAPL No.12135 of 2025 Page 11 of 27

in Baisinga PS Case No. 103 of 2019 by showing the

petitioner as an absconder, which was accepted by the

learned Court in seisin over the matter, but the same

having not been challenged in any forum and claiming

the contrary to it for not being shown as an absconder in

the charge sheet, the only ultimate conclusion is that the

latin Maxim “suppressio veri, expressio falsi” which

means "the suppression of the truth is equivalent to the

expression of a falsehood" fits against the petitioner in

this case.

7. Adverting to the plea of non-compliance of

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

India as raised by the petitioner, this Court has no

hesitation to agree with the argument advanced by Mr.

Luthra, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the

petitioner can be admitted to bail for non-compliance of

these provisions which are mandatory in nature, but it is

a case where the State has contended that there is

sufficient compliance of these provisions of Section 47 of

BNSS r/w. Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India,

BLAPL No.12135 of 2025 Page 12 of 27

however, these provisions make it amply clear that no

person can be detained in custody without informing him

as soon as may be, of the grounds of his arrest, but the

mode of communication of such grounds of arrest has

neither been prescribed in Article 22(1) of the

Constitution of India nor has it been described in Sec.47

of the BNSS, however, the same has been prescribed by

judgment law. For grant of bail to the petitioner due to

non-compliance of these provisions resulting in vitiation

of his arrest and remand, Mr. Luthra, learned Senior

Counsel has argued that the representation of petitioner

by a counsel at the time of remand of the petitioner

would not dispense with the compliance of these

provisions and the constitutional scheme has made it

mandatory for conveying the grounds of arrest to the

arrestee in writing expeditiously, but there is a

significant difference between “reasons for arrest” and

“grounds of arrest”, out of which the former is formal,

whereas the latter is mandatory and in this case, the

copy of remand application even does not contain the

BLAPL No.12135 of 2025 Page 13 of 27

specific grounds of arrest and the same cannot be

considered as due compliance of these provisions. It is

further argued by Mr.Luthra that the requirement of

informing the arrestee of the grounds of arrest is not an

empty formality, but a mandatory constitutional

requirement and non-compliance thereof is clear

violation of fundamental right and accepting the

objection of the informant about petitioner not taking

the plea of non-compliance of these provisions at the

earliest would amount to nullify the provision of Article

22(1) of Constitution of India, even though the

petitioner has not taken such plea during his remand to

custody on various dates since it was the duty of the

Presiding Officer of the concerned Court to ensure

compliance of these provisions before remanding the

petitioner to custody in this case, but that having not

done and the petitioner having remanded to custody

without the compliance of these provisions with charge

sheet not disclosing the compliance of Sec. 47 of BNSS

read with Article 22(1) of Constitution of India, the

BLAPL No.12135 of 2025 Page 14 of 27

arrest of the petitioner stands vitiated, so also his

subsequent remands in this case, which can only be

rectified by releasing the petitioner from custody on bail

and in support of his contention, Mr.Luthra extensively

relies on the decisions in Vihaan Kumar vs. State of

Haryana & Another; (2025) 5 SCC 799 & Prabir

Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi); (2024) 8

SCC 254. This Court has no hesitation in accepting the

law laid down by the Apex Court in these decisions, but

in Mihir Rajesh Shah Vrs. State of Maharashtra;

(2026) 1 SCC 500 , the Apex Court has laid down the

principle that the grounds of arrest must be

communicated to the arrestee in writing in the language

he understands and such communication of grounds of

arrest in writing has been made applicable to the arrest

prospectively, which is evident from the relevant

observation of the Apex Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah

(supra) at paragraph-68 which is reiterated as under:-

“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,

BLAPL No.12135 of 2025 Page 15 of 27

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 .”

8. The above issue of informing the arrestee of

his “grounds of arrest” to apply to the arrest

prospectively has been reiterated in a very recent

decision in State of Meghalaya Vrs. Sonam

Raghuvanshi @ Bitti @ Bittu in SLP (CRL.)

No.11944 of 2026, disposed of on 23.07.2026 ,

wherein the Apex Court at paragraph-9 has held thus:-

“9. Law is quite settled that serving of the

grounds of arrest is mandatory. This has been

introduced as a Judge made law vide a

judgment of this Court in the case of Mihir

Rajesh Shah (supra) . That is the precise

reason why this Court was pleased to hold that

though such a procedure is not contemplated,

nonetheless, it is so required in order to give

effect to Article 22(1) of the Constitution of

India. For the said reason, the decision

was made to apply prospectively .

Admittedly, in the case on hand, the

respondent was arrested on 09.06.2025 much

before the date of pronouncement of Mihir

Rajesh Shah (supra) .”

BLAPL No.12135 of 2025 Page 16 of 27

It is, therefore, very clear that the Apex Court in Sonam

Raghuvanshi(supra) by relying upon the precedent in

Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) has reiterated that the

decision in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) was made to

apply prospectively to the arrest and thereby, rejected

the plea of the accused-respondent therein for grant of

bail on the simple reason of the arrest being made much

prior to the date of pronouncement of judgment in Mihir

Rajesh Shah (supra). In the present case, the

petitioner was arrested on 29.10.2025 which is before

the date of pronouncement of judgment in Mihir Rajesh

Shah (supra) which was delivered on 06.11.2025.

9. Another distinguished and significant issue

involved in this case is that the petitioner has never

taken such plea of non-compliance of Sec.47 of BNSS till

it was taken for the first time in this bail application by

way of I.A. No. 199 of 2026 which was basically filed for

extending the interim bail to the petitioner, however,

such application of the petitioner was in fact dismissed

by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, but without

BLAPL No.12135 of 2025 Page 17 of 27

adverting to such issue, however, the said order having

not been challenged by the petitioner attains finality.

This Court not only strongly believes, but also has no

doubt in the mind that the total non-compliance of

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

India is not permissible being violative of constitutional

mandate, but inadequate compliance of such provisions

can only enure to the benefit of the arrestee, if he

establishes prejudice for such inadequate compliance

which is in fact laid down in Sonam Raghuvanshi

(supra), wherein in paragraph-11, the Apex Court has

held thus:-

“11. xx xxx xxx xxx There is a fundamental

difference between nonservice of grounds of

arrest and non-furnishing of adequate

reasons thereunder. While the first category

might vitiate the arrest, in the second

category, one has to see the prejudice

caused to the accused. In the facts of the

instant case, it is not as if the respondent was not

served with the grounds of arrest. Hence, the

case of the respondent falls within the second

category discussed above.”

On examining the plea of non-compliance of

these provisions in the light of aforesaid principle of the

BLAPL No.12135 of 2025 Page 18 of 27

Apex Court, it appears that the petitioner was arrested

on 29.10.2025 at 4.50A.M. from his residence with a

memo of arrest being prepared by the Arresting Officer,

wherein the circumstance of arrest in brief (grounds of

arrest) has been described “as prima facie evidence

well established U/S.318(4)/ 319(2)/ 338/ 336(3)/

340(2)/341(1)/61(2) of the BNS ” and such memo of

arrest was not only signed by the wife of the petitioner,

but also by the petitioner himself and counter signed by

the Arresting Officer. Besides, the certified copy of the

first remand report submitted by the IO as produced

reveals the details of the allegation levelled against the

petitioner and his arrest by informing him the grounds

of his arrest and observing all the arrest formalities.

Further, it is found from the copy of order sheet

produced by the petitioner that on 29.10.2025, the

petitioner was produced before the concerned Court

and the concerned Court has also asked about any ill-

treatment meted out to the petitioner, but the

petitioner has complained of no ill-treatment in custody

BLAPL No.12135 of 2025 Page 19 of 27

and such remand proceeding was also held in presence

of the counsel appearing for the petitioner and the

order of the remand was also signed by the petitioner

himself, but he has not raised any prejudice nor his

counsel raised about non-compliance of these

provisions, however, the remand order also reveals

that the Investigating Officer has also submitted arrest

and inspection memo, medical examination report of

the petitioner, original CD, statement of witnesses

along with other documents including the seizure list.

The main object and purpose of these provisions is to

prevent arbitrary arrest and to ensure that the accused

be made aware of the allegation against him so that he

can protect his liberty in the Court of law, but at this

stage, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not

aware of the allegation against him, more particularly

when his bail application has been rejected by the

Court in seisin over the matter after thorough

discussion and his application in I.A. No. 199 of 2026,

which was filed before this Court earlier taking the plea

BLAPL No.12135 of 2025 Page 20 of 27

of non-compliance of these provisions has already been

rejected and he has failed to demonstrate any prejudice

caused to him, even if his plea for non-compliance is

accepted for a moment. This Court firmly believes that

there must be a meaningful compliance of the

provision, but inadequate compliance is a question of

fact that has to be ascertained by perusing the

materials on record and although the learned Senior

Counsel has argued that there is total non-compliance

of the aforesaid provision of Sec.47 of BNSS r/w. Article

22(1) of the Constitution of India, but the discussion

made hereinabove makes it a case of inadequate

compliance inasmuch as, the petitioner was arrested

and the details of his arrest has been described in the

arrest memo, wherein not only the provisions of law for

which the petitioner was forwarded to the Court has

been stated, but also it contains the date & time of

arrest, the signature of the petitioner and his wife and

that of Arresting Officer in English.

BLAPL No.12135 of 2025 Page 21 of 27

10. Be that as it may, the petitioner albeit has

taken the plea of non-compliance subsequently in this

bail application on 16.03.2026 by way of I.A. No. 199

of 2026 which was already dismissed, of course the

plea of law can be taken at any point of time, but the

petitioner must have been produced before the Court in

seisin of the case on many occasions in the

interregnum since he was arrested on 29.10.2025,

however, he has not raised any prejudice caused to him

in those remand proceedings before the Court in seisin

over the matter. Further, the bail application of the

petitioner was extensively heard and disposed of by the

learned Court in seisin over the matter on 07.11.2025,

but he has not raised any prejudice caused to him on

the ground of non-compliance of these provisions. In

the context of subsequent challenge of such plea, this

Court, however, considers it relevant to refer to the

decision in Sonam Raghuvanshi (supra), wherein the

Apex Court at paragraph-12 therein has held as under:-

“12. Xxx xxx xxx we would only clarify that

when an accused person files a bail application,

BLAPL No.12135 of 2025 Page 22 of 27

the stage might become irrelevant. However,

when the accused person warranted a

finding on merits on the earlier occasions,

it is not open for him/her to go back and

raise the plea on the issue pertaining to

the grounds of arrest thereafter.”

It is not in dispute that the investigation in

this case is kept pending U/S.193(9) of BNSS and in

Sonam Raghuvanshi (supra) , the Apex Court at

paragraph-10 has held thus:-

“10. Apart from the fact that the respondent

was conspicuously absent and, thus, could not

be traced after the occurrence, the law does

not restrain the prosecuting agency from re-

arresting a person. In other words, non-

compliance of the service of grounds of

arrest to an accused and consequent

enlargement on bail, will not act as a

fetter to re-arrest the said accused for the

purpose of investigation.”

11. In view of the discussions made hereinabove

coupled with the position of law as exposited by the

Apex Court with regard to non-compliance of Sec.47 of

BNSS r/w. Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, but

the claim of the petitioner being found to be inadequate

compliance, however, no prejudice having been

BLAPL No.12135 of 2025 Page 23 of 27

demonstrated by the petitioner, even the plea of non-

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

Constitution of India is taken into consideration and the

arrest of the petitioner being prior to date of

pronouncement of judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah

(supra), which prescribes service of grounds of arrest

to the arrestee to apply to the arrest prospectively and

the same being reiterated by the Apex Court in Sonam

Raghuvanshi (supra) and keeping in view the

disposal of I.A. No. 199 of 2026, which has been filed

by the petitioner to challenge his arrest to be vitiated

on account of non-compliance, but the petitioner having

not challenged such order passed in the I.A. No. 199 of

2026, this Court does not find any merit in the plea of

the petitioner for non-compliance of Sec.47 of BNSS

r/w. Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.

12. Even otherwise, considering the bail

application of the petitioner on merits, it appears that

Mr. Luthra, learned Senior Counsel has brought to the

notice of the Court that this case is based on

BLAPL No.12135 of 2025 Page 24 of 27

documentary evidence, which has already been

collected by the Investigating Agency and there are 56

charge sheeted witnesses whose examination would

definitely take considerable time, but the petitioner

being not a flight risk, he still can be admitted to bail

on merits. It is, however, found from the record that

the petitioner has not only four criminal antecedents

prior to registration of this case, but also he is

subsequently implicated in another case after

registration of this case, but in the four cases, the

petitioner has been implicated for similar type of

offences, however, NBWA was issued against the

petitioner in Baisingha P.S. Case No. 103 of 2019 as

the Investigating Officer has not only obtained such

NBWA during pendency of the investigation, but also

has shown the petitioner as an absconder in the charge

sheet and the aforesaid conduct is definitely an adverse

circumstance against the petitioner, no matter he was

granted bail in the aforesaid case subsequently. It

cannot be forgotten that the paramount consideration

BLAPL No.12135 of 2025 Page 25 of 27

in granting bail is securing attendance of the accused at

the trial, but the conduct of the petitioner in this case

appears to be not in consonance with the legal

principle, more particularly when he has not disclosed

his criminal antecedents in the bail application, but

subsequently disclosed the same once objection is

raised by the learned State Counsel. Besides, there

appears allegation against the petitioner for

impersonating himself as an employee of the Bank to

induce the informant-company and it’s Directors to

purchase the mortgaged property of the Bank and

accordingly, received Rs.14,01,83,039/- by executing

allegedly fake documents with forged signatures of

Authority of the Bank. Even though the allegation

against him is denied, but the petitioner himself has

stated in the bail application to have received

Rs.14,01,83,039/- in his personal account from the

company, however, he has failed to give any

satisfactory explanation for receiving such an amount

from the informant company. Not only the allegation

BLAPL No.12135 of 2025 Page 26 of 27

against the petitioner is serious, but also, he is

allegedly involved in other cases for similar offences,

which are in fact adverse circumstances for considering

his bail application positively. In the context of criminal

antecedents, this Court considers it relevant to refer to

the decision in Azwar Vrs. Waseen; 2024 10 SCC 768 ,

wherein in Paragraph 26 the Apex Court has held as

under:-

“26.while considering as to whether, bail

ought to be granted in a matter involving a

serious criminal offence, the Court must consider

relevant factors like the nature of accusations

made against the accused, the manner in which

crime to have been committed, the gravity of the

offence, the role attributed to the accused, the

criminal antecedents of the accused , the

probability of tempering of the witnesses and

repeating the offence, if the accused are released

on bail, the likelihood of the accused being

unavailable in the event bail is granted, the

possibility of obstructing the proceedings and

evading the Court of justice and the overall

desirability of releasing the accused on bail.”

In view of the discussions made hereinabove, this

Court, therefore, does not consider it proper to extend

the discretionary relief of bail to the petitioner on

merits.

BLAPL No.12135 of 2025 Page 27 of 27

13. In the result, the petitioner is not entitled to

bail, either on merits or on technicality of non-

compliance of mandatory provision of law. Accordingly,

the BLAPL stands disposed of. A copy of this order be

immediately transmitted to the learned Court in seisin

over the matter.

(G. Satapathy)

Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack,

Dated the 14

th

day of August, 2026/S.Sasmal