ABLAPL/5816/2026 of AMAN SAHU Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 8 September 2026

ORDER

08.09.2026

03. 1. Since all the ABLAPLs relate to the same FIR, they are heard together on the consent of the parties and disposed of by this common order.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

3. The Petitioners are seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with G.R. Case No.176 of 2026 pending on the file of learned S.D.J.M., Padampur, arising out of Padampur P.S Case No.38 of 2026 for commission of offences punishable under Sections Sections 318(4)/336(3)/340(2)/61(2)(b)/111(2)(b)/3(5) of BNS, 2023 read with sections 66(C)/66(D) of IT Act,2008.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that the allegations against the Petitioners are of operating mule accounts and since charge sheet has been filed, taking into account the nature of allegations, there is no necessity of custodial interrogation of the Petitioners.

5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for pre-arrest bail inter alia referring to the offences involved being an economic offence affecting the society at large and in this context he relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Serious Fraud Investigation Office Vrs. Aditya Sarda, 2025 SCC Online SC 764.

6. On going through the submissions of the learned counsel for the Petitioners, it is seen that the following Petitioners have criminal antecedents and the same run thus:- “Petitioner in ABLAPL No.5816 of 2026

i) Padampur PS Case No.192 of 2017 U/s- 380 of IPC

Petitioner in ABLAP No.6179 of 2026

i) Bargarh Town PS Case No.287 of 2022 U/s- 294(A)/420/120(B)/34 IPC read with Section 4/5 of PCMCB Act and Section 7 of L.R. Act.”

7. So far as the aforesaid criminal antecedent is concerned, the same is contested by the learned counsel for the Petitioners.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State places reliance on the communication of the IIC indicating that earlier the case No. was wrongly stated as Bargarh Town PS Case No.108 dt.18.02.2026 U/s-318(4)/319(2) of BNS r.w. Section 66(C)/66(D) of IT Act instead of Bargarh Town PS Case No.287 of 2022 U/s-294(A)/420/120(B)/34 IPC read with Section 4/5 of PCMCB Act and Section 7 of L.R. Act.

9. On an analysis of the transactions on record, it is the case of the prosecution that the Petitioner in ABLAPL No.5816 of 2026 along with Petitioner in ABLAPL No.6413 of 2026 are involved in facilitation of opening of five accounts which has transaction of around Rs.2 Crores and the remaining balance as per the prosecution is Rs.36,000/-.

10. So far Petitioner in ABLAPL No.6179 of 2026 is concerned, the transaction runs thus:-

Account Number Opening Balance Debit Credit Hold CANARA BANK A/C No-120002791345 512.94 384.00

17.70 8260.00 CANARA BANK A/C No-120002791345 270.34 1527457.40 1527700.00 8260.00 CANARA BANK A/C No-120002791345 146.64 0.00 0.00 8260.00 CANARA BANK A/C No-120002791345 0.00 10584274.50 10584544.84 8260.00 FEDERAL BANK A/C No-22000100102031 0.00 7242985.33 7242986.35

11. Considering the nature of allegations and the dictum of the Apex Court relating to the approach of the Courts in the matter of dealing with pre-arrest bail in case of economic offences which affects the society at large, this Court is not inclined to grant the “exceptional remedy” of pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners.

12. Liberty is granted to the Petitioner in ABLAPL No.6179 of 2026 to renew his prayer, in the event he is not cited as an accused in Bargarh Town P.S. Case No.287 of 2022 as noted above which is on the basis of “apology for an unintentional mistake” submitted by the IIC which is taken on record.

13. Accordingly, the ABLAPLs stand rejected.

(V. NARASINGH)

Judge Ayesha Digitally Signed Signed by: AYESHA ROUT Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 10-Sep-2026 18:40:03 Signature Not Verified