Orissa High Court
Parsuram Rajneth Bhai Pal vs State Of Orissa … Opposite Party on 5 May, 2026
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL NO.6838 of 2024
(In the matter of application under Section 483 of
BNSS, 2023).
Parsuram Rajneth Bhai Pal ... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Orissa ... Opposite Party
For Petitioner : Mr. R. Tripathy, Advocate
along with Ms. C. Tripathy,
Advocate
For Opposite Party : Mr. J.P. Patra, Advocate
(OPID)
CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:05.05.2026(ORAL)
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 BBSR PS Case No.23 of 2023 corresponding to GR
Case No.913 of 2022 pending in the file of learned PO,
Designated Court under OPID Act, Cuttack, for
commission of offences punishable U/Ss.406/420/468/
467/471/120-B of IPC r/w Sections 4/5/6 of Prize Chits
Money Circulation (Banning) Act and Section 6 of OPID
Act.
BLAPL No.6838 of 2024 Page 1 of 9
2. The factual allegation as divulged from the
record traces its origin to the accused company “M/s.
Armada Bazar Pvt. Ltd”, a company dealing with
consumer goods with the petitioner as its Director, who
while starting operation of the company in Odisha was
joined by Jyoti Ranjan Jena as Odisha Head-Cum-
Director and, accordingly, they dishonestly allured and
induced the informant and others to invest in opening
up subsidiary of the company namely “New Marts” to
deal with marketing of grocery, daily utility items,
utensil and electronic items and in the process, could
manage to initially obtained investment of Rs.1 Crore
with Rs.50 Lakh each from the informant and his cousin
on the assurance of lucrative returns for opening up
business of New Mart in Dhenkanal and Angul. The
company accordingly executed several franchise
agreements with different investors on the assurance of
high and hefty returns towards the dividend for the
profit of investment and in the process, the petitioner
and others had allegedly taken Rs.12.87 Crores of
investment, but subsequently the informant felt
BLAPL No.6838 of 2024 Page 2 of 9
deceived, he accordingly, lodged an FIR before the
Superintendent of Police, Economic Offences Wing,
Bhubaneswar resulting in registration of EOW BBSR PS
Case No.23 of 2023 and the allegation therein was
investigated into. In the course of investigation, it was
unearthed that the company has launched several
schemes like Mini Market, Super Market, Hyper Mart,
Mega Mart etc. by arranging several physical meetings
and conferences at different places. Further, it was also
found that the co-accused Pankaj Kumar Parida has
received a sum of Rs.22,30,731/- to his account from
the accused company’s account and all the invested
amounts were collected through Account
Nos.158005003515 and 158005003493 of the accused
company “M/s. Armada Bazar Pvt. Ltd” maintained with
ICICI bank with the petitioner being one of the
authorized signatories of the later account in which a
sum of Rs.14.06 Crores had been credited in between
01.11.2022 to 24.07.2023. On finding prima facie
materials, the petitioner was taken into custody and on
completion of investigation; charge-sheet has already
BLAPL No.6838 of 2024 Page 3 of 9
been submitted against the petitioner and co-accused
along with the company for offences indicated above.
3. In the course of hearing, Mr. Rajesh
Tripathy, learned counsel appearing along with Ms.
Chandana Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that neither the petitioner has any intention to
cheat nor had he cheated anyone, but the petitioner is
in custody since 15.02.2024, but co-accused Pankaj
Kumar Parida has already been granted bail, however,
the petitioner is languishing inside the jail custody.
Further, Mr. Tripathy submits that the petitioner has
already been granted bail in all the cases, which have
been shown against him as criminal antecedents. On
the aforesaid submission, Mr. Tripathy prays to grant
bail to the petitioner.
3.1. On the other hand, Mr. J.P. Patra, learned
counsel for OPID, however, by producing the written
instruction submits that not only the petitioner has
cheated 133 innocent investors, but also he has
misappropriated Rs.12.87 Crores of innocent depositors
and he has got eight criminal antecedents to his credit
BLAPL No.6838 of 2024 Page 4 of 9
and, therefore, it would not be proper to grant him bail.
Accordingly, Mr. Patra prays to reject the bail
application of the petitioner.
4. After having considered the rival
submissions upon perusal of record, there appears
allegation against the petitioner for deceiving 133
depositors for a sum of Rs.12.87 Crores and right now,
the case record has been posted for examination of
witnesses and the petitioner is having the following
criminal antecedents:-
“1. Jammu EOW PS Case No.96/2023, dt.
16.09.2023, U/s.420/120-B IPC,
2. Agra, Jagadishpur PS Case No.526/2023,
dt.08.10.2023, U/s.420/406/467/468/120-B
IPC,
3. Vishakapatanam Commissionrate, IV Town
PS Case No.12/2024, dt.09.01.2024,
U/s.420/120-B IPC,
4. Andra Pradesh, Nadyal PS Case
No.198/2023,dt.10.10.2023, U/s.420/406/34
IPC,
5. Cuttack, Madhupatana PS Case No.28, dtd.
24.01.2024, U/s.420/406/467/468/471/120-
B IPC, the cases are under investigation,
6. Telengana, Warangal District, Palakurthy
PS Case No.37/2024, U/s.420/34 IPC, r/w
Sec. 66-D of IT Act,BLAPL No.6838 of 2024 Page 5 of 9
7. Telengana, Warangal District, Palakurthy
PS Case No.38/2024, U/s.420 IPC, r/w Sec.
66-D of IT Act.”
5. However, the co-accused Pankaj Kumar
Parida against whom there is allegation of
misappropriating Rs.22,30,731/- of the investors has
been granted bail, whereas the magnitude of financial
fraud against the petitioner is quite high. In the context
of criminal antecedents, it is considered appropriate to
refer to the decision in Ash Mohammad Vrs. Shiv Raj
Singh @ Lalla Babu and another; (2012) 9 SCC
446, wherein the Apex has been pleased to hold at
paragraph-30 as under: –
“30. We may usefully state that when the
citizens are scared to lead a peaceful life and
this kind of offences usher in an impediment
in establishment of orderly society, the duty
of the court becomes more pronounced and
the burden is heavy. There should have
been proper analysis of the criminal
antecedents. Needless to say, imposition of
conditions is subsequent to the order
admitting an accused to bail. The question
should be posed whether the accused
deserves to be enlarged on bail or not and
only thereafter issue of imposing conditions
would arise. We do not deny for a
moment that period of custody is a
relevant factor but simultaneously the
totality of circumstances and theBLAPL No.6838 of 2024 Page 6 of 9
criminal antecedents are also to be
weighed. They are to be weighed in the
scale of collective cry and desire. The
societal concern has to be kept in view in
juxtaposition of individual liberty. Regard
being had to the said parameter we are
inclined to think that the social concern in
the case at hand deserves to be given
priority over lifting the restriction of liberty
of the accused.
5.1. Similarly, in Neeru Yadav vrs- State of
Uttar Pradesh & another; (2014) 16 SCC 508, the
Apex Court at Paragraph-17, has held as follows:-
“17. Coming to the case at hand, it is found
that when a stand was taken that the 2nd
respondent was a history-sheeter, it was
imperative on the part of the High Court to
scrutinize every aspect and not capriciously
record that the 2nd respondent is entitled to
be admitted to bail on the ground of parity.
It can be stated with absolute certitude that
it was not a case of parity and, therefore,
the impugned order clearly exposes the non-
application of mind. That apart, as a matter
of fact it has been brought on record that
the 2nd respondent has been charge
sheeted in respect of number of other
heinous offences. The High Court has
failed to take note of the same. Therefore,
the order has to pave the path of extinction,
for its approval by this court would
tantamount to travesty of justice, and
accordingly we set it aside.”
6. Besides, there is allegation against the
petitioner for executing false franchise agreements with
BLAPL No.6838 of 2024 Page 7 of 9
different investors for opening up new franchise after
taking investment from the individual investors, but
subsequently failed to pay the assured return. It is also
alleged in the charge-sheet that a sum of Rs.14.06
Crores has been credited to the Account
No.158005003493 standing in the name of company
with the petitioner as one of the authorized signatories.
In addition, one of the offences alleged against the
petitioner is U/S.467 of IPC, which prescribes
punishment for life.
7. In view of the aforesaid facts and taking
into account the nature and gravity of the offences as
alleged against the petitioner vis-à-vis the accusations
sought to be brought against him and regard being had
to the punishment prescribed for the offences alleged
against the petitioner and the petitioner having
allegedly duped investors by defrauding Crores of
rupees and taking into account the magnitude of the
financial fraud involved in this case and regard being
had to the involvement of the petitioner in other
criminal cases in different States and keeping in view
BLAPL No.6838 of 2024 Page 8 of 9
the other circumstances on record in entirety including
the mode and manner of taking investment from the
depositors on the assurance of high returns and there
being likelihood of influencing the witnesses by the
petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the
petitioner at this stage.
8. Hence, the bail application of the petitioner
stands rejected. 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 5th day of May, 2026/Subhasmita
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SUBHASMITA DAS
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 07-May-2026 14:01:25
BLAPL No.6838 of 2024 Page 9 of 9
