Orissa High Court
Pratap Kumar Rout vs State Of Odisha on 22 July, 2026
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.3999 of 2026
(In the matter of application under Section 483 of the
BNSS).
Pratap Kumar Rout ... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha ... Opposite Party
For Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Patra. Advocate
For Opposite Party : Mr. J.P. Patra, Addl. PP
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
DATE OF HEARING & DATE OF JUDGMENT:22.07.2026 (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,
Bhubaneswar PS Case No.14 of 2025 corresponding to CT
Case No.17 of 2025 pending in the Court of learned Presiding
Officer, Designated Court under OPID Act for commission of
offences punishable under Sections
420/467/468/471/120(B) of IPC r/w Sec.4/5/6 of PCMC Act
r/w Sec.21(1)(3) of Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme
Act r/w Sec.66(D) of IT Act, on the allegation of alluring the
BLAPL No.3999 of 2026
Page 1 of 4
general public with lucrative scheme of investment and
collecting money from 18 depositors, but subsequently
defrauding them by not refunding their investments.
2. In the course of hearing, Mr. Amit Kumar Patra,
learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although
there is allegation against the petitioner for collecting money
from the investors, but he is innocent employee of the
company and he has simply collected the money and
transferred it to company’s account, which is evident from
the materials on record and thereby, the petitioner having no
criminal intent to cheat anybody and he having co-operated
the investigation by remaining in jail, the petitioner may
kindly be granted bail.
2.1. On the other hand, Mr. J.P. Patra, learned counsel
for OPID, however, strongly opposes the bail application of
the petitioner by contending inter alia that not only the
petitioner has collected the money from the depositors, but
he has also transferred the money to the company’s account
only to defraud the general investors and thereby, the
petitioner having prima facie role in defrauding the investors,
his bail application may kindly be rejected. Mr. Patra, also
submits that the petitioner has actively participated in the
BLAPL No.3999 of 2026
Page 2 of 4
promotional activity of the company inviting investments
from general public and he is actively involved in the
conspiracy and thereby, he does not deserve to be released
on bail.
3. After having considered the rival submissions upon
perusal of record, there appears allegation against the
petitioner for collecting the money from the general
investors, but it appears from the written instruction
submitted by the learned counsel for the OPID that the
petitioner has allegedly collected Rs.1,88Lakhs from the
investors, but he has transferred the same to the account of
the different companies maintained by co-accused persons.
No doubt the participation of the petitioner in promotional
activity has been emphasized as a ground for refusal of bail,
but there is no material on record to indicate that the
petitioner has diverted any substantial amount for its own
use. Right now, the petitioner is in custody since 18.10.2025
and in the meantime, preliminary charge-sheet has already
been submitted, however, no custodial interrogation of the
petitioner appears to be required in this case. Bail should not
be confused with acquittal of accused and it is a temporary
release from the custody. In the aforesaid facts and
BLAPL No. 3999 of 2026
Page 3 of 4
circumstances and taking into account the mode and manner
of implication of the present petitioner and the status of the
petitioner as a functionary of the company-Hadgex Fund LLP
and no material being collected to indicate about
abscondence of the petitioner in the event of his
enlargement of his bail, this Court without expressing any
view on merit admits the petitioner to bail.
Hence, the bail application of the petitioner stands
allowed and the petitioner is allowed to go on bail on
furnishing bail bonds of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakhs)
only with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the
satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin of the case on such
terms and conditions as deem fit and proper by it.
4. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. A soft
copy of this order be immediately communicated to the
concerned Court, who shall afterwards communicate the
same to the concerned Jail through e-mail for reference.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Signature Not Verified
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Digitally Signed
Dated the 22nd Day of July, of 2026/ Jayakrushna
Signed by: PRIYAJIT SAHOO
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Date: 22-Jul-2026 20:38:03
BLAPL No.3999 of 2026
Page 4 of 4
