Orissa High Court
Jitendra Kumar Mishra & Others vs State Of Odisha …. Opposite Party on 23 February, 2026
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ABLAPL No.4385 of 2025
Jitendra Kumar Mishra & others .... Petitioners
Mr. A. Mishra, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. S. Panda, ASC
Mr. B. Nayak, Advocate (Informant)
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
DATE OF HEARING :18.02.2026
Order DATE OF ORDER:23.02.2026
No.
11. 1. Heard Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners,
Mr. Panda, learned ASC for the State and Mr. Nayak, learned
counsel for the informant.
2. Instant petition under Section 481 BNSS is at the behest
of the petitioners seeking grant of anticipatory bail in
connection with Lalbag P.S. Case No.229 dated 17th
November, 2024 corresponding to G.R. Case No.679 of 2024
pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M.(S), Cuttack on the
grounds stated.
3. The informant lodged a complaint in 1.C.C. No.1148 of
2024 in the Court of learned S.D.J.M.(S), Cuttack alleging
therein that the petitioners committed fraud and cheated him to
the tune of Rs.2,04,32,000/- (rupees two crores four lakh thirty-
two thousand) with details of the transaction having taken place
Page 1 of 12
between them being described therein. It has been alleged by
the informant that the petitioners received an amount from him
in connection with construction work towards improvement
and widening of Balugaon-Mahipur Road showing a
Government work order, but misappropriated the same and
therefore, committed fraud, forgery and cheating. Upon
receiving the complaint, the learned court below directed
registration of a case. Accordingly, Lalbag P.S. Case No.229
dated 17th November, 2024 was registered under Sections 318,
336, 338, 296, 351 & 3(5) of BNS. In course of investigation,
which is in progress, the petitioners have approached this Court
seeking pre-arrest bail on the stated grounds.
4. Briefly stated, the case as unfolded in the FIR dated 17th
November, 2024 is to the effect that the informant is in
construction business and he is the Managing Director of M/s.
Saubhagya Builders Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack and petitioner Nos.1 & 2
are also in the same business and are Proprietors of M/s. Raja
Construction, Nayagarh, who introduced petitioner No.3 with
him being the partner of M/s. Raghunath Construction,
Nayagarh. According to the informant, the petitioners informed
him that M/s. Raghunath Construction had been awarded the
work in the widening and improvement of Balugaon-Mahipur
Road and asked for help and to provide all of them the men,
machines and materials and assured a share in the profit and by
that means, received Rs.2,04,32,000/- and thereafter, did not
respond, rather, on 31st July, 2024, he was threatened and
terrorized and as a result, the complaint was filed. Such
Page 2 of 12
complaint finally resulted in registration of Lalbag P.S. Case
No.229 dated 17th November, 2024.
5. Perused the objection filed by the informant, affidavit
of the petitioners and also reply to the same dated 17 th
December, 2025 by the informant.
6. According to the informant, the petitioners approached
him in his office at Alisha Bazaar, Cuttack and gave impression
that if he invested money for supplying labour and in the
procurement of materials and further deposited the EMD and
APS amount, all of them would share the profit as partners. It
has been pleaded by the informant that petitioner No.3 showed
him the letter of the Superintending Engineer (R&B Division),
Nayagarh intimating M/s. Raghunath Construction, Nayagarh
to deposit a bank guarantee towards security and insisted him
to transfer money to their account, as a consequence whereof,
an amount of Rs.73,41,000/- was transferred to the account of
M/s. Raghunath Construction on different dates between 29 th
April, 2022 and 10th February, 2022 from his personal account
and also the account of the Firm. Apart from the above, an
amount of Rs.50,00,000/- was given in cash to opposite party
No.3. The informant claims that he has given a sum of
Rs.1,23,41,000/- to M/s. Raghunath Construction, Nayagarh.
Furthermore, as per the understanding between them, the
informant pleads that he transferred Rs.30,00,000/- to the
account of petitioner No.1 and Rs.25,41,000/- to petitioner
No.2 and an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- in cash to both of them,
in total, Rs.80,91,000/- was paid by him and it was in
Page 3 of 12
connection with the execution of work, movement of
machineries and towards day-to-day expenses and by such
means, all the petitioners received an amount of
Rs.2,04,32,000/-. In support of such payments at the instance of
the informant, the statements showing such transfers by the
informant to the accounts managed by the petitioners have been
brought on record as Annexure-A/2. The allegation of the
informant is that the amount received from him by the
petitioners was not returned. The informant alleges that he
requested the petitioners to enter into an agreement in writing
with his Firm but all started ignoring and avoiding him and in
the meantime, the execution of the work was commenced
without paying any heed to the above request. Despite several
attempts to get the money back as he had to pay interest over
the money to the Bank, it was in vain, hence, has been cheated
by the petitioners.
7. According to the affidavit filed by the petitioners, they
have no liability at all to return the amount to the informant,
who is rather to pay them an amount of Rs.4,00,83,986/- in
view of the claim based on Annexures-4, 5 & 6. It has been
pleaded further that the complaint is purely related to a
commercial dispute, but the case has been registered by giving
it a criminal colour, which has been deprecated by the Apex
Court time and again and more recently in Sharif Ahmed and
another Vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another 2024 SCC
OnLine 726.
Page 4 of 12
8. As per the petitioners, no cause of action has taken
place within the jurisdiction of the learned court below but the
informant filed the complaint at Cuttack with the allegation that
he had approached the IIC, Nayagarh P.S. for action, but
registration of it by an order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
should not have been directed. The petitioners contend that
both parties had attempted for a settlement and refer to
Annexure-2 and Annexure-3 series, but the informant, even
though, received all the vouchers and bills under signature on
24th November 2023, for reasons best known to him, he lodged
the complaint, which is clearly an attempt to extract money
from them. It is alleged that the informant never had any
business with petitioner Nos.2 & 3. It is also pleaded that
mediation was attempted, but it has failed. In course of such
mediation, the informant is alleged to have admitted that he has
no business link with M/s. Raghunath Construction, Nayagarh,
as further claimed by the petitioners. According to the affidavit,
late father of petitioner No.3 was the Proprietor of M/s.
Raghunath Construction, whereas, the informant never met
petitioner No.3 or had any business connection with him either.
At the end, the petitioners pleaded that petitioner No.1 and the
informant tried to run a crusher unit at Mangarajpur in the
district of Nayagarh and in that, huge loss was incurred, so also
for the road work from Raj-Sunakhala to Chandpur and in that,
the latter completely sidetracked and did not take the burden,
rather, put the entire loss on petitioner No.1, who sent an e-mail
on 25th August, 2023 to the informant annexing all the credit
and debit details, claiming an expenditure of Rs.90,45,897/-,
Page 5 of 12
who, however, remained silent as to the part of his liability. A
copy of the e-mail dated 25th August, 2025 with all credit-debit
balance sheet is at Annexure-4 series, referring to which, the
above plea has been advanced. The petitioners, as a counter,
allege that the informant is liable to pay an amount of
Rs.1,04,83,986/-, which he is well aware of and in support of
the same, the statement of calculations at Annexure-6 is
referred to. It is also claimed that petitioner No.1, who was sick
during the month of April, 2023 and had to undergo treatment,
during such absence for a period more than six months, the
informant taking advantage of the situation of his prior business
connection, manipulated the records being hand in glove with
the staff working under him and created self-serving documents
by accessing the official e-mail and other confidential
documents, which he could learn during September, 2023 and
immediately reported the matter to the local police, requesting
them for settlement of the dispute. Finally, the claim is that
petitioner No.1 is having ailments and is under treatment and
referred to the medical papers at Annexure-7 series.
9. The claim of the petitioners has been refuted with a
detailed reply by the informant. The liability against the
informant is denied and all such facts pleaded in the affidavit
by the petitioners with the claim that the allegations therein
against him are utterly false.
10. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners
reiterates that the materials on record clearly suggest that it is a
commercial dispute between the parties. It is also submitted
Page 6 of 12
that mediation was suggested by the Court, but it was
unsuccessful. The further submission is that all such attempts
were made for resolution of the dispute, but it has also failed.
In support of the attempt to go for a settlement, Mr. Mishra,
learned counsel for the petitioners refers to Annexures-2 & 3
series. The contention is that the informant deliberately filed
the complaint at Cuttack instead of approaching the local police
at Nayagarh. Since it is related to a commercial transaction,
according to Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, the
complaint ought not to have been entertained. The further
submission is that the petitioners are entitled to pre-arrest bail
in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Sharif Ahmed
(supra). The contention is that a commercial or civil dispute
should not have been given a colour of criminality by filing the
complaint and leading to registration of a case at Cuttack and
therefore, pending investigation, the petitioners should be
granted protection against arrest.
11. On the contrary, Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the
informant vehemently objects to the grant of anticipatory bail
to the petitioners considering their conduct and mischief and
for having not refunded the money, they have received from
him. Referring to Annexure-3 series, it is further submitted by
Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the informant that the same
does not relate to the contract in connection with which the
complaint is filed against the petitioners and therefore, a
deliberate attempt has been made to mislead the Court. With all
details of the transactions and referring to the same, Mr. Nayak,
Page 7 of 12
learned counsel would submit that the petitioners are guilty of
misappropriation of huge amount having received it from the
informant and the same was not refunded despite repeated
requests made, rather, threat was administered not to demand
such refund.
12. Mr. Panda, learned ASC appearing for the State
produces the case diary and all other relevant documents and
submits that there is an allegation of fraud and cheating from
the side of the informant and the investigation is underway.
Referring to the instruction received from the Lalbag P.S., Mr.
Panda learned ASC submits that the informant is alleged to
have been cheated by the petitioners for a sum of
Rs.2,04,32,000/- and a substantial part of the payments
received is proved on record. The contention is that the
petitioners are not entitled to anticipatory bail, as has been
demanded by them.
13. Gone through the case diary and connected materials.
As it appears, in course of investigation, seizures have been
made by the I.O. in connection with the payments made and
received between the parties through bank transactions.
14. The complaint was filed by the informant in 2024 and
thereafter, Lalbag P.S. Case No.229 dated 17th November, 2024
was registered. The Court finds several transactions having
taken place between the parties. The payments and receipts of
the amount are sought to be proved through the statements of
the Bank. The petitioners alleged the liability against the
Page 8 of 12
informant. In fact, petitioner No.1, who is said to have had
dealings with the informant in running a stone crusher, referred
to the expenses detail of the year 2022 as at Annexure-4 series
of the affidavit and claims that there is such a liability against
him and it stands at Rs.1,04,83,986/-. On the other side, the
informant alleges that the payments were received, but without
any agreement in writing and the project work was commenced
despite protest by him. In absence of any such agreement in
writing between the parties, the informant demanded the money
back, but the construction of the road work is alleged to have
continued by the petitioners. The Court finds the business
details between the parties and the record suggests that a work
order was issued to M/s. Raghunath Construction, Nayagarh. In
respect of the above contract, a copy of the Performance Bank
Guarantee dated 24th November, 2022 has been seized by the
police. On perusal of the case diary and connected record, the
Court finds that the same was demanded from M/s. Raghunath
Construction for the work ‘Improvement and Widening of
Balugaon-Mahipur Road in the district of Nayagarh’ towards
security deposit for the fulfillment of the contract in the terms
and conditions thereof for a sum of Rs.3,76,75,800/-. As per the
said Performance Bank Guarantee, the Union Bank of India
furnished the undertaking to pay the beneficiary of the said
amount against any loss or damage caused or suffered by
reason of breach of contract. So, it is made to reveal that a work
order was in place for the said contract and the Performance
Bank Guarantee was furnished. The record reveals several
transactions to have been taken place with payments exchanged
Page 9 of 12
between the parties for the construction of the road work and
such other business activities engaged between them.
15. As against the aforesaid background, without
attributing anything on merits of the case, since the
investigation is in progress, the Court is to consider, whether,
the petitioners are entitled to pre-arrest bail in terms of Section
481 BNSS. The crux of the dispute is transactions based and in
relation to the project work and other activities between the
parties. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that the dispute is commercial and manifestly proved from the
record and therefore, in view of the decision of the Apex Court
in Sharif Ahmed (supra), the accused persons ought to be
granted anticipatory bail. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the
informant strongly pleads that gross mischief has been
committed and hence, the petitioners are not entitled to any
such relief. Mr. Panda, learned ASC for the State supports the
contention advanced from the side of the informant.
16. In the above decision, it was held and concluded that a
Magistrate should be cautious in examining a complaint and to
consider whether the facts disclosed therein amount to a civil or
criminal wrong. It has been further observed therein that any
such attempt in initiating vexatious criminal proceedings
should be thwarted early as a summoning order or even a
direction to register an FIR has grave consequences for setting
the criminal action in to motion as held in Dipak Gaba &
others Vrs. State of U.P. & another (2023) 3 SCC 423 and at
the end, in one the appeals filed, directed release of the accused
Page 10 of 12
persons on anticipatory bail in a case registered under Sections
420 and 120-B IPC.
17. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for
the respective parties and the decision in Sharif Ahmed (supra)
and regard being had to the transactions between the parties,
who are running the business activities and the dispute inter se
related to the construction of road and rival claims of liabilities
to be discharged with, which is denied by both the sides and the
fact that the entire exercise is document oriented, this Court is
of the humble view that the petitioners, who had business
dealings with the informant in different capacities and on
couple of occasions even without any contract in writing and
that they are on interim protection and nothing on record to
suggest that such liberty was ever misutilized by them, they
should be granted pre-arrest bail with suitable conditions
imposed. In other words, in view of the nature of the dispute
between the parties and the fact that the allegation of the
informant is under scrutiny and the investigation is in progress
to examine the same, the petitioners having business dealings
with him, should be protected by an order of pre-arrest bail.
18. Accordingly, it is ordered.
19. In the result, the ABLAPL stands disposed of.
Consequently, it is directed that the petitioners in the event of
their arrest in connection with Lalbag P.S. Case No.229 dated
17th November, 2024 corresponding to G.R. Case No.679 of
2024 pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M.(S), Cuttack shall
Page 11 of 12
be released on bail by the Arresting Officer on furnishing a bail
bond of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) each with one
solvent surety for the like amount each with a condition that
that they shall cooperate the I.O. in the investigation without
default, till it is completed.
20. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
M.K.Rout
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MANOJ ROUT K
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT
Date: 24-Feb-2026 17:00:51 Page 12 of 12
