Orissa High Court
Sudarsan Patra @ vs State Of Odisha …. Opposite Party(S) on 6 May, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.3832 of 2026
Sudarsan Patra @
Dukhana .... Petitioner(s)
Mr. Anupam Rath, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party(s)
Mr. Tej Kumar, ASC
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
ORDER
Order No.
06.05.2026
01.
F.I.R. Dated Police Case No. and Sections
No. Station Courts’
Name
74 27.02. Aska G.R. Case 319(2)/318(4)
2026 No.300 of /316(2)/61(2)/
2026, 116(6) of the
J.M.F.C. BNS and
(Cog.), Aska Sections
66(C)/66(D)
of the I.T.
Act.
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.
3. The Petitioner, being in custody in connection with Aska
Signature Not Verified P.S. Case No.74 dated 27.02.2026, corresponding to G.R.
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF
ORISSA, CUTTACK
Case No.300 of 2026, pending in the Court of learned
Date: 07-May-2026 19:17:07
J.M.F.C. (Cog.), Aska, registered for the alleged commission
Page 1 of 5
of offences under Sections 319(2)/318(4)/316(2)/61(2)/116(6)
of the BNS and Section 66(C)/66(D) of the I.T. Act, has filed
this petition for his release on bail.
4. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the
informant, who is also the IIC of Aska Police Station,
received a letter from CID CB Odisha, Cuttack, containing
details of 241 NCRP-linked suspected mule bank accounts
and, pursuant thereto, conducted a preliminary enquiry.
Verification revealed that several accounts maintained at
Utkarsh Small Finance Bank, Aska Branch, were being used
to route proceeds of cyber fraud. One such account
belonging to Laxmi Naik had received Rs.90,000/- as
suspected fraudulent proceeds. During enquiry, Laxmi
Naik, a daily wage earner, stated that one Srikant
Mohapatra, posing himself as an L&T agent, had induced
her and several other women to open bank accounts by
collecting their Aadhaar cards and photographs, while
retaining custody of their passbooks. On the basis of the said
information, Subrat Khillar was arrested. During
interrogation, he disclosed that Srikant Mohapatra had
persuaded him and his friend, the Petitioner to open such
accounts. It further transpired that Srikant Mohapatra had
promised to pay Rs.5,000/- per account, pursuant to which
Subrat Khillar facilitated the opening of five accounts,
including one in the name of the Petitioner. Thus, the
Page 2 of 5
Petitioner is alleged to have induced innocent persons to
open mule accounts, which were operated under the control
of Srikant Mohapatra @ Sidhu, from whose possession
incriminating materials, including ATM cards and
passbooks, were seized.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the
Petitioner has been in judicial custody since 27.02.2026 and,
in the meantime, investigation has been completed and
charge sheet has already been filed. Hence, no further
custodial interrogation is required. He further submits that
the Petitioner himself is a victim of inducement and
allurement by the principal accused and that no specific
defrauded amount or unlawful gain has been attributed to
him in the charge sheet. It is further contended that no
incriminating materials, such as ATM cards or passbooks,
were seized from the possession of the Petitioner, inasmuch
as the passbooks and ATM cards were admittedly recovered
from the possession of the principal accused. Learned
counsel also submits that the Petitioner has no criminal
antecedents. Accordingly, he prays for release of the
Petitioner on bail.
6. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail
and submits that the Petitioner has committed serious
offences involving cheating and forgery in connivance with
Page 3 of 5
the co-accused persons. Accordingly, he prays for rejection
of the bail application.
7. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel
for the respective parties, the nature of allegations, the
period of detention undergone by the Petitioner since
27.02.2026, the fact that investigation has already been
completed and charge sheet has been filed, this Court is of
the view that further custodial interrogation of the Petitioner
is no longer necessary.
8. This Court also takes note of the fact that no
incriminating materials, such as ATM cards or passbooks,
were seized from the possession of the Petitioner and that
the principal allegations appear to be directed against the
co-accused Srikant Mohapatra @ Sidhu, from whose
possession such incriminating articles were recovered.
Furthermore, no specific overt act involving direct receipt of
the defrauded amount or unlawful pecuniary gain has been
attributed to the present Petitioner in the materials available
on record. The Petitioner is also stated to have no criminal
antecedents.
9. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case
and considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this
Court is inclined to allow the prayer for bail.
10.Accordingly, it is directed that the Petitioner be released
on bail in the aforesaid case on such terms and conditions as
Page 4 of 5
deemed just and proper by the learned Court in seisin over
the matter, including the conditions that:
i. the Petitioner shall appear before the learned
trial Court on each date fixed;
ii. the Petitioner shall not tamper with the
prosecution evidence or try to influence any
witness;
iii. the Petitioner shall not involve himself in any
offence of similar nature while on bail.
11. Violation of any of the above conditions shall entail
cancellation of bail.
12. The bail application is accordingly allowed and disposed
of.
13. Issue urgent certified copy of this Order as per Rules.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Sipun
Page 5 of 5
