Page 1 of 20

ABLAPL Nos.8557, 8559,8572,8649,8724

and 9141 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

,

ABLAPL No.8557 of 2026

(CNR No. ODHC010531282026)

With

ABLAPL Nos.8559,8572,8649,8724 and 9141 of

2026

(CNR Nos. ODHC010531312026, ODHC010539602026,

ODHC010539402026, ODHC010539312026,

ODHC010580552026 respectively)

In the matter of applications under Section 482 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

…

Sri Debasish Kumar Das

(In ABLAPL No.8557 of 2026)

(CNR No. ODHC010531282026 )

Sri S Balgopal

(In ABLAPL No.8559 of 2026)

(CNR No. ODHC010531312026)

Debika Pradhan

(In ABLAPL No.8572 of 2026)

(CNR No. ODHC010539602026)

Rashmita Sahoo

(In ABLAPL No.8649 of 2026)

(CNR No. ODHC010539402026)

Pritisnigdha Priyadarshini

(In ABLAPL No.8724 of 2026)

(CNR No. ODHC010539312026)

Shakti Prasad Das

(In ABLAPL No.9141 of 2026)

(CNR No. ODHC010580552026)

…

Petitioners

-versus-

State of Odisha

… Opp. Party

Page 2 of 20

ABLAPL Nos.8557, 8559,8572,8649,8724

and 9141 of 2026

Advocate(s) appeared in this case

For Petitioners - Mr. A.K. Mohapatra, Advocate

(In ABLAPL Nos.8557, 8559 &

8649 of 2026)

Ms. D. Mohapatra, Advocate

(In ABLAPL No.8572 of 2026)

Mr. H.P. Rath, Advocate

(In ABLAPL No.8724 of 2026)

Mr. S. Mohapatra, Sr. Advocate

along with Mr. P. Mohapatra,

Advocate

(In ABLAPL No.9141 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 JUDGMENT : 03.09.2026

----------------------------------------------------------------

V. Narasingh, J.

1. Since all the ABLAPLs relate to EOW P.S.

Case No.9 of 2026, on the consent of the

parties, they are taken up together and are

disposed of by this common order.

2. Heard learned Senior Counsel and

learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned

counsel for the State.

Page 3 of 20

ABLAPL Nos.8557, 8559,8572,8649,8724

and 9141 of 2026

3. The Petitioners are seeking pre-arrest

bail in connection with C.T. Case No.12 of 2026

pending on the file of learned Presiding Officer,

Designated Court under OPID Act, Cuttack

arising out of Economic Offence Wing P.S. Case

No.09 of 2026 for commission of offences

punishable under Sections 120-B

1

/ 420

2

/ 409

3

/

419

4

/ 467

5

/ 468

6

/ 471

7

/ 477-A

8

of the Indian

1

120-B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy .—(1) Whoever is a party

to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death ,

imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of 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 a s if

he had abetted such offence.

(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a crimi nal

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.

2

420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property .—

Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceive d 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.

3

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, o r with

imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend t o ten

years, and shall also be liable to fine.

4

419. Punishment for cheating by personation .—Whoever cheats by

personation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for

a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

5

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 authorit y to any

person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive t he

principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any

Page 4 of 20

ABLAPL Nos.8557, 8559,8572,8649,8724

and 9141 of 2026

Penal Code, 1860 r/w Section 66-D

9

of

Information Technology (Amendment) Act,

2008.

4. The allegations of the prosecution,

instituted on a written report lodged by the

Deputy General Manager and Zonal Head,

Cuttack Zone, UCO Bank, reveal that there

were serious financial irregularities in the

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 imprisonme nt for

life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may

extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

6

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 of e ither

description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be

liable to fine.

7

471. Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record.—

Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document o r

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.

8

477-A. Falsification of accounts .—Whoever, being a clerk, officer or

servant, or employed or acting in the capacity of a clerk, officer or

servant, willfully, and with intent to defraud, destroys, alters, mutilates or

falsifies any book, electronic record, paper, writing, valuable security or

account which belongs to or is in the possession of his employer, or has

been received by him for or on behalf of his employer, or wi llfully, and

with intent to defraud, makes or abets the making of any false entry in,

or omits or alters or abets the omission or alteration of any mate rial

particular from or in, any such book, electronic record, paper, writing,

valuable security or account, shall be punished with imprisonment o f

either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with

fine, or with both.

9

66-D. Punishment for cheating by personation by using computer

resource.— Whoever, by means of any communication device or

computer resource cheats by personation, shall be punished with

imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three

years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to one l akh

rupees.

Page 5 of 20

ABLAPL Nos.8557, 8559,8572,8649,8724

and 9141 of 2026

sanctioning, processing and disbursal in

respect of 22 UCO Car Loans and 2 Business

Loans, involving an amount of approximately

Rs.325.43 lakhs (Rupees Three Crore Twenty-

Five Lakhs Forty-Three Thousand only) during

the relevant period.

5. Learned counsel for the State, Mr.

Panigrahi, submits that the allegations of

deliberate manipulation of Banking Records,

fabrication and misuse of documents, creation

of an artificial repayment history and diversion

and siphoning of bank funds are under

investigation, so also the role ascribed to each

of the Petitioners.

Hence, they ought not to be protected

by pre-arrest bail and to substantiate his claim,

he relies on the following judgments:

i. P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of

Enforcement

10

ii. Directorate of Enforcement v. P.V.

Prabhakar Rao

11

10

P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24.

11

Directorate of Enforcement v. P.V. Prabhakar Rao, (1997) 6 SCC 647.

Page 6 of 20

ABLAPL Nos.8557, 8559,8572,8649,8724

and 9141 of 2026

iii. Y.S. Jaganmohon Reddy vs. Central

Bureau of Investigation

12

iv. State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji

Porwal

13

v. Nimmagadda Prasad v. Central

Bureau of Investigation

14

6. Per contra, learned Senior counsel and

counsel for the Petitioners submit that, since the

allegations are essentially based on documentary

evidence and the Petitioners have deep roots in

the society, there is no scope for them to evade

arrest or interfere with the ongoing investigation,

which is also not the allegation of the

prosecution.

7. It is his further submission that the

Petitioner in ABLAPL No.8557 of 2026 (Debashis

Kumar Das), the Petitioner in ABLAPL No.8572 of

2026 (Debika Pradhan), the Petitioner in ABLAPL

No.8724 of 2026 (Priti Snigdha Priyadarshini),

the Petitioner in ABLAPL No.8559 of 2026 (S.

Balgopal) and the Petitioner in ABLAPL No.8649

of 2026 (Rashmita Sahoo) are employees of the

12

Y.S. Jaganmohon Reddy vs. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439.

13

State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal, (1987) 2 SCC 364.

14

Nimmagadda Prasad vs. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 466.

Page 7 of 20

ABLAPL Nos.8557, 8559,8572,8649,8724

and 9141 of 2026

Bank and the Petitioner in ABLAPL No.9141 of

2026 (Shakti Prasad Das) is the brother of the

principal accused-Shiba Prasad Das.

8. So far as Petitioner-Debashis Kumar Das, in

ABLAPL No.8557 of 2026, is concerned, it is

submitted by the learned counsel that the said

Petitioner, while functioning as Assistant

Manager, UCO Bank at Salepur Branch from

December 2023 to November 2025, worked with

the principal accused-Shiba Prasad Das from

March 2024 to February 2025.

During this period, a loan amount of

Rs.8,60,000/- was granted in favour of one

Durga Prasad Das. Though the application was

incomplete, an amount of Rs.8,59,646/- was

remitted to an SBI account, which ultimately

found its way to the account of the principal

accused-Shiba Prasad Das.

Similar allegations have been levelled in

respect of loans granted to Bikram Keshari Jena

for an amount of Rs.9,49,823/- (M/s OSL Motors

Pvt. Ltd.). Amount of Rs.9,99,823/- to Amulya

Nayak and a loan sanctioned in favour of Sankar

Page 8 of 20

ABLAPL Nos.8557, 8559,8572,8649,8724

and 9141 of 2026

Behera and Kabita Nayak to the tune of Rs.16.50

lakh, when the Petitioner (Debashis Kumar Das)

was the Appraising Officer, against fabricated

quotations of M/s Utkal Automobiles, and the

money was automatically credited to the account

of the principal accused-Shiba Prasad Das.

Similar allegations also relate to one

Abhimanyu Behera, who was sanctioned a loan

of Rs.10,00,000/- and the same modus operandi

was adopted to defraud the bank.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for

the State that there is prima facie material

regarding systemic diversification of the loan

account of the principal accused. Hence, the

Petitioners ought not to be protected by pre-

arrest bail.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner, on the

other hand, submits that he inevitably followed

the instructions as received. Hence, no

culpability can be attached to him and there is no

money trail to his account. He may, therefore, be

protected by pre-arrest bail.

Page 9 of 20

ABLAPL Nos.8557, 8559,8572,8649,8724

and 9141 of 2026

9. So far as Petitioner-Debika Pradhan, in

ABLAPL No.8572 of 2026, is concerned, it is

submitted by the learned counsel that the

Petitioner (Debika Pradhan), while she was

posted as Assistant Manager at Salepur UCO

Branch from April 2021 to September 2024,

worked with the principal accused-Shiba Prasad

Das from April 2024 to September 2024.

The allegation against her is of opening

savings bank accounts without proper

genuineness of customers.

It is the submission of the learned counsel

for the State that, notwithstanding that she

lacked the sanctioning authority for the disbursal

of loans, the role played by her in account

opening and transaction-entry logs assumes

significance in the light of the investigation into

the larger conspiracy involving 22 UCO Car Loans

and 02 Business Loans, as already stated.

Hence, no leniency ought to be shown to her.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner in ABLAPL

No.8572 of 2026 further submits that admittedly

Page 10 of 20

ABLAPL Nos.8557, 8559,8572,8649,8724

and 9141 of 2026

there is no money trail in the account of the

Petitioner-Debika Pradhan and that she was not

the sanctioning Authority and her case,

therefore, stands on a different footing and she

ought not to be denied pre-arrest bail.

10. So far as Petitioner-Pritisnigdha

Priyadarshini in ABLAPL No.8724 of 2026 is

concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel

that the Petitioner, while she was posted as

Assistant Manager at Salepur Branch, UCO Bank

from September 2024 to November 2025,

worked with the principal accused-Shiba Prasad

Das, who was functioning as Branch Head. The

Petitioner-Pritisnigdha Priyadarshini was

responsible for customer identification, account

opening, due diligence, verification of KYC

documents and E-KYC creation, authorisation of

retail customer IDs, creation and authorisation of

new Savings Bank Accounts and

entry/processing of financial transactions.

The allegation against the present

Petitioner-Pritisnigdha Priyadarshini is that she

failed to conduct E-KYC in accordance with the

Page 11 of 20

ABLAPL Nos.8557, 8559,8572,8649,8724

and 9141 of 2026

prescribed banking norms. Hence, her role is

being probed in relation to the 22 UCO Car Loans

and 2 Business Loans. On account of such

allegations, the prayer for pre-arrest bail is

registered.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner-

Pritisnigdha Priyadarshini submits that, at best,

the allegations against her are of procedural

lapses. Hence, the Petitioner, being a lady, may

be enlarged on pre-arrest bail.

11. So far as Petitioner-S. Balgopal in ABLAPL

No.8559 of 2026 is concerned, it is submitted by

the learned counsel that the Petitioner (S.

Balgopal), during his incumbency as Manager

(Advance-in-Charge), Salipur Branch of UCO

Bank from July 2021 to August 2024, worked

with the principal accused-Shiba Prasad Das from

February 2024 to August 2024. He was

responsible for processing/recommending loan

proposals and ensuring compliance with

prescribed banking procedure.

Learned counsel for the State, on the basis

of recitals of the Case Diary, submits that his

Page 12 of 20

ABLAPL Nos.8557, 8559,8572,8649,8724

and 9141 of 2026

role as Recommending Officer in multiple loan

accounts, where essential borrower documents

and supporting records were found to be

fabricated or deficient, is the subject matter of

investigation.

There is an allegation against him relating to

the Car Loans of Deepak Kumar Behera,

Shubranshu Sekhar Sahu, Samir Kumar Sahoo,

Sankar Behera and Kabita Nayak.

Prima facie, the investigation indicates that

fabricated quotations were used, while the

amount involved, about Rs.16,50,000/-, was

transferred to the account of the principal

accused-Shiba Prasad Das, though Finacle

reflected the beneficiary as M/s Utkal

Automobiles.

The prayer for pre-arrest bail application is

opposed, inter alia, on the ground to probe the

background in which the Petitioner- S. Balgopal

ignored the apparent discrepancies.

The Petitioner’s (S. Balgopal) plea is similar

to those who were working in the bank, that he

Page 13 of 20

ABLAPL Nos.8557, 8559,8572,8649,8724

and 9141 of 2026

merely followed the instructions of the Branch

Head and hence no complicity can be attached to

him and he ought to be released on pre-arrest

bail.

12. So far as Petitioner-Rashmita Sahoo in

ABLAPL No.8649 of 2026 is concerned, it is

submitted by the learned counsel that the

Petitioner during her tenure as Assistant Manager

at Old Secretariat Branch, Cuttack from August

2021 to July 2024, worked with the principal

accused-Shiba Prasad Das.

The allegation against her is that she

sanctioned UCO Car Loans to Sunanda Das for an

amount of Rs.9,50,000/-, to Sanghamitra Dash

for an amount of Rs.15,00,000/-, to Basanta

Kumar Routray for an amount of Rs.12,96,000/-

and to Rajib Agrawal for an amount of

Rs.38,98,000/-.

It is apt to note that, save and except in

relation to Sunanda Das, where the Petitioner

(Rashmita Sahoo) was the Recommending

Officer, in all other cases, the Petitioner was the

Appraising Officer.

Page 14 of 20

ABLAPL Nos.8557, 8559,8572,8649,8724

and 9141 of 2026

13. So far as Petitioner-Shakti Prasad Das in

ABLAPL No.9141 of 2026 is concerned, it is

submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that the

allegation against the present Petitioner-Shakti

Prasad Das is on a different plane. He is

admittedly the brother of the principal accused-

Shiba Prasad Das and further submits with

vehemence that merely because he is the

brother of the principal accused, he has been

falsely implicated. Hence, he may be protected

by pre-arrest bail.

14. It is the case of the prosecution that

the Petitioner-Shakti Prasad Das had a Union

Bank account and the said account received

funds from the accounts operated by Shiba

Prasad Das.

It is submitted by the learned State counsel

that an amount of Rs.32,00,000/- was credited

on 09.06.2022 to the Petitioner’s (Shakti Prasad

Das) Union Bank account and immediate debits

of Rs.5,00,000/- each were made on

09.06.2022, 10.06.2022, 11.06.2022,

Page 15 of 20

ABLAPL Nos.8557, 8559,8572,8649,8724

and 9141 of 2026

12.06.2022 and 13.06.2022 and Rs.2,00,000/-

on 14.06.2022, as has come to light.

On the basis of the transaction trail, the

prosecution seeks to establish prima facie that

funds from the account of the Petitioner-Shakti

Prasad Das were used for repayment of several

disputed loan accounts and repeated transactions

between the present Petitioner, the principal

accused-Shiba Prasad Das and the borrower

accounts would go to indicate that the Petitioner

had connived with his brother and the money

was routed through his account.

Per contra, learned counsel for the Petitioner

submits that it is a case of false implication and

only because he is the brother, he is being

sought to be implicated, as already noted.

15. This Court perused the Case Diary, which

prima facie indicates that loans were sanctioned

by violating all norms and the prescribed

procedure was followed in its complete breach

and Savings Bank accounts of the borrowers

were opened without any documentation at

Salepur Branch, as follows:

Page 16 of 20

ABLAPL Nos.8557, 8559,8572,8649,8724

and 9141 of 2026

Sl.

No.

Account No Name Account

Opening date

1 04290110177594 Durga Prasad

Das

05.09.2024

2 04293211072195 Bikram Keshari

Jena

08.05.2025

3 04290110179048 Amulya Nayak 01.02.2025

4 04290110178850 Ajit Kumar

Subudhi

03.01.2025

5 04290110176368 Sankar Behera 29.06.2024

6 04290110178867 Gouranga

Nayak

03.01.2025

7 04293211072188 Abhimanyu

Behera

08.05.2025

8 04290110179819 Rajib Lochan

Sahoo

29.04.2025

9 04293211072478 Cheeranjib

Mohanty

19.05.2025

10 04290110176689 Deepak kumar

Behera

18.07.2024

11 04290110174944 Shuvranshu

Sekhar Sahu

30.03.2024

12 04290110176696 Samir Kumar

Sahoo

18.07.2024

13 04290110178256 Ashutosh

Mohapatra

04.11.2024

14 042901101708263 Soumya

Ranjan Mallik

04.11.2024

And the total amount involved, as per the

recitals of Case Diary comes to Rs.1,26,85,000/- (11

Loanees) and the break up the amounts as stated as

under:

Page 17 of 20

ABLAPL Nos.8557, 8559,8572,8649,8724

and 9141 of 2026

SN Account No Name

1 04290110177594 Durga Prasad

Das

Rs. 8.60 Lakhs

2 04293211072195 Bikram

Keshari Jena

Rs. 9.50 lakhs

3 04290110176368 Sankar Behera Rs. 16.50 lakhs

4 04290110178867 Gouranga

Nayak

Rs. 10 lakhs

5 04293211072188 Abhimanyu

Behera

Rs. 10 lakhs

6 04290110179819 Rajib Lochan

Sahoo

Rs. 9.75 lakhs

7 04293211072478 Cheeranjib

Mohanty

Rs. 9.20 lakhs

8 04290110174944 Shuvranshu

Sekhar Sahu

Rs. 19 lakhs

9 04290110176696 Samir Kumar

Sahoo

Rs. 16 lakhs

10 04290110178256 Ashutosh

Mohapatra

Rs. 9.80 lakhs

11 04290110178263 Soumya

Ranjan Mallik

Rs. 8.50 lakhs

Total Rs.1,26,85,000/-

And combined with the other amounts, the

total defalcation comes to Rs.3.25 Crores.

Page 18 of 20

ABLAPL Nos.8557, 8559,8572,8649,8724

and 9141 of 2026

16. The fraud perpetrated relates to UCO Bank,

Old Secretariat, Cuttack and Salepur Branch,

Cuttack, during the incumbency of accused-

Shiba Prasad Das.

17. The submission of the learned counsel for

the Petitioners that they have acted only at the

behest of the said principal accused and,

therefore, no complicity can be attached to

them cannot be accepted at its face value,

considering the role ascribed to them in

processing the loans.

18. Admittedly, the investigation in the present

case is continuing, and it involves an economic

offence. It is stated to be at a crucial stage to

unearth the larger conspiracy.

19. It is well settled by the Apex Court, that

the approach for grant of bail, and more so in

the case of pre-arrest bail, has to be different,

in a case where the allegation is of commission

of economic offence, as in the present case.

Page 19 of 20

ABLAPL Nos.8557, 8559,8572,8649,8724

and 9141 of 2026

20. In fact, in the case of Serious Fraud

Investigation Office v. Aditya Sarda

15

, the

Apex Court has held that, unless exceptional

circumstances are made out, pre-arrest bail in

economic offences which affect the community

at large and, in the process, the economy

should not be granted.

21. This Court finds force in the submission of

the learned counsel for the State, Mr. Panigrahi,

that the investigation is at a crucial bend and, in

fact, if the Petitioners are protected by pre-

arrest bail, it may derail the ongoing

investigation and their interrogation would

become farcical, being ensconced by an order of

pre-arrest bail.

In this context, reliance is placed on the

judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State

v. Anil Sharma

16

.

22. This Court is conscious of parameter of

grant of pre-arrest bail as setout in the

15

Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Aditya Sarda, 2025 SCC OnLine

SC 764.

16

State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187.

Page 20 of 20

ABLAPL Nos.8557, 8559,8572,8649,8724

and 9141 of 2026

judgment of the Apex Court in the case of

Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of

Investigation

17

.

23. Considering the rival submissions in the

light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the

case of Aditya Sarda (supra)

15

treating

economic offences on a different plane, this

Court is not persuaded to hold that the

Petitioners are entitled to the “exceptional

remedy” of pre-arrest bail. Hence, all the

ABLAPLs accordingly stand rejected.

24. Interim order stands vacated.

25. Accordingly, all the ABLAPLs stand disposed

of.

(V. Narasingh)

Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack

Dated the 3

rd

September, 2026/Soumya

03.09.2026/Uploaded

17

Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation , 2023 SCC

OnLine SC 452.