Orissa High Court
Pratyusha Prasanna vs State Of Odisha …. Opp. Party(S) on 2 May, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ABLAPL No. 2641 of 2026
Pratyusha Prasanna .... Petitioner(s)
Kar Mr. D.R. Mohapatra,
Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opp. Party(s)
Ms. S. Devi, ASC
Mr. Milan Kanungo,
Sr. Advocate
(Informant)
CORAM:
JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Order ORDER
No. 02.05.2026
01.
1.
The petitioner is an accused in connection with
EOW P.S. Case No. 4 of 2026 registered on the
allegation of the alleged commission of offence
punishable under Sections 120-B/420/467/468/471,
pending in the Court of the learned Designated Court
under OPID, Cuttack.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instruction
from the petitioner, submits that, except the present
bail application, no other bail application of the
petitioner is pending in any other Court relating to the
aforesaid F.I.R.
3. The allegation in the FIR in the present case is
Page 1 of 5
that the informant-Subhransu Sekhar Padhi alleged
that the petitioner, his brother, nephew and the other
associate, namely, Rajiv Lochan Das have deceived
him by pretending to be a friend and have told him
that an auction has been held for Jagannath Prasad
Balighat under Bhandari Pokhari Tahahsil in Bhadrak
district. It is alleged that the petitioner impressed
upon him saying that since he has no such solvency,
the said Sand Sairat to be taken on lease by the
informant and the petitioner will look after the same
and also to pay solvency of Rs. 60 lakhs per annum.
An agreement was also executed between the
informant and the petitioner on 19.05.2021 for the
work and as per agreement he agreed to deposit
amount or transfer the amount to the account of the
informant from his own bank account or from the
bank account of any other third party. As per the
agreement, the petitioner earned money by collecting
sand from the sand ‘ghat’ in the second phase and
selling it but the second installment of Rs.2,76,35,571
was not deposited in his account or Rs. 5 lakhs was
not paid to the informant per month as per the
agreement. Since, the informant did not deposit the
rest money by 30.11.2021 with the Tahasil Office,
hence a notice was issued by the Tahasil Office in the
name of the informant asking him deposit the rest
money, for which he was forced to take a loan and pay
the money in installments. When the informant asked
Page 2 of 5
to pay the said money, the petitioner avoided and kept
on rolling his promises to pay, but has not paid yet. It
is also alleged that in November 2025, when the
informant went to the petitioner and asked him to
return the remaining money, he point blank said he
will not, rather warned to do whatever the
complainant wants. On these allegations; the EOW P.S
Case No. 4/2026 was registered and investigation was
taken up.
4. Pursuant to the order dated 22.04.2026, the IIC
(Dy. S.P.) EOW, Bhubaneswar has filed the status
report dated 01.05.2026, inter alia, stating that the
FIR in the present case was registered on 10.02.2026
by one Subhranshu Sekhar Padhi, S/o- Narayan
Chandra Padhi, on the basis of which the EOW P.S.
Case No. 4 of 2026 for the alleged commission of
offence punishable under Sections 420/467/468/
471/120-B of IPC has been registered. During
investigation, it appears to have revealed that the
petitioner persuaded the informant to lend his
solvency certificate and participate in the tender for
sand quarry and also promised that he will operate
the said quarry and pay Rs.5.00 lakhs per month to
the informant. The informant/complainant
participated in the auction and became successful
bidder for the year 2021-22 and subsequently he
executed an agreement with the present petitioner to
Page 3 of 5
operate the mine. The petitioner has operated the
mining and earned huge amount, but he failed to
deposit the dues and also did not pay the agreed
amount to the complainant. Therefore, the dispute
arose. It is also found that certain documents have
been forged by the petitioner in order to obtain
pecuniary benefits and to avoid payment to the
complainant. The investigation of the case is in active
progress as per the report. The IIC also stated in the
report that she has been trying to procure the
necessary material documents from different sources
to conclude the investigation and she is yet to receive
the materials and documents so as to file the charge
sheet in the present case.
5. At this stage, the learned State Counsel has
brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner
has criminal antecedents. Learned counsel for the
State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail on the
ground that the accused has committed systematic
fraud causing huge loss to the complainant. Mr.
Kanungo also joins the State counsel to oppose the
bail plea of the petitioner.
6. Since the entire allegation is directed against the
present petitioner and he has criminal antecedents,
the petitioner is not entitled to grant of anticipatory
bail at this stage as the investigation is at nascent
stage. However, he may renew the prayer after the
Page 4 of 5
charge sheet is filed.
7. Accordingly, the ABLAPL is rejected.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
Ashok
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB
MOHAPATRA
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 02-May-2026 15:26:51
Page 5 of 5
[ad_1]
Source link
