BLAPL/5903/2026 of NASIT BHAUTIK BHAI JAYANTI BHAI @ NASIT BHANTIK BHAI Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 2 September 2026

1. This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Cyber Crime CID CB, Odisha PS Case No.0053 of 2024 corresponding to CT Case No.04 of 2026 pending in the Court of learned Presiding Officer, Designated Court under OPID Act, Sambalpur for commission of offences punishable under Sections 318(4)/ 319(2)/ 336(2)(3)/338/340(2)/61(2)/3(5) of BNS r/w Sec.66(C)(D) of IT Act.

2. The background facts in precise are that the informant who is a medicine representative has a trading account with Religare Broking Ltd. since 2000, but in July, 2024, one person stated to be a lady named as Neha Verma was regularly sending text messages to persuade him to invest through an App and accordingly, the informant installed the App from the website with link https://nedau.hikesney.com/api/c/ yelsp7h4, but after installing the App, the handler of such App persuaded the informant to invest money in a fake minor App on the assurance of high returns and accordingly, the informant invested money through twelve transactions from his own accounts maintained at Indian Overseas Bank(10 transactions), Central Bank and ICICI Bank, however, a sum of Rs. 71,50,000/- out of the total investment of Rs. 1,30,00,000/- made by the informant in between 12.07.2024 to 04.09.2024 was transferred to the account held in the name of Maruti Construction maintained at Cosmos Bank with rest amount being transferred to Jay Ambay Traders, Royal Tours and Travels, and Dalapthi invest India Pvt. Ltd. in their bank accounts maintained with Bandhan Bank, SBI, City Union Bank & HSBC Bank.

2.1. When the informant denied for withdrawal out of his investment amount, he came to know to have been deceived and thereafter, he lodged the FIR vide Cyber Crime FIR No.53 of 2024 and the matter was investigated into and on completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted, but in the course of investigation, finding the petitioner to be one out of two proprietors of Maruti Construction with A/c No.110100108372 maintained at Cosmos Bank and a sum of Rs.71,50,000/- to have been credited to the aforesaid account from the account of the informant in eight transactions, the petitioner was taken into custody and when his bail application was rejected by the learned Addl. Sessions Court-cum-PO, OPID Court, Sambalpur, he is before this Court in this bail application.

3. In the course of hearing, Mr. Debi Prasad Dhal, learned Sr. counsel who is being assisted by Mr. Shiladitya Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although there appears allegation against the petitioner for deceiving the informant for a sum of Rs. 71,50,000/-, but in fact there is no material to suggest that the petitioner has deceived the informant, rather the account of Maruti Construction which stands jointly in the name of the petitioner and one Vijaybhai Ashokbhai Balar, was exclusively being operated by the said Vijaybhai Ashokbhai Balar and the petitioner has no role in the transactions of the account of the Maruti construction, rather the petitioner was a silent name lender and the construction company was being operated & managed by the said Vijaybhai Ashokbhai Balar, the allegation against the petitioner is misdirected and the petitioner having been detained in custody since 20.01.2026 with no role in this case, he may kindly be granted bail. Mr. Dhal also submits that since the allegation is based on documentary evidence and the petitioner being a respectable person in the society with less chance of his absconding and he being not a flight risk, there would not be any impediment to grant bail to the petitioner. On the aforesaid submission, Mr. Dhal prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

3.1. On the other hand, Mr. M.R. Patra, learned Addl. PP, in opposing the prayer for bail of the petitioner submits that not only Maruti Construction Company stands in the name of the petitioner, but also the account attached to such Maruti Construction belongs to the petitioner and another and the account having been opened by the petitioner and the other person with their signatures in the account form, the petitioner cannot escape his liability because the amount has been transacted to the aforesaid account of the company and, therefore, by considering the enormity of the allegation, the bail application of the petitioner may kindly be rejected.

4. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, no doubt there appears allegation of transfer of money of Rs. 71,50,000/- from the account of the informant to the account of Maruti Construction which stands in the name of petitioner and Vijaybhai Ashokbhai Balar, but it is found and confirmed by the learned State counsel that the said company’s account was being used and operated by Vijaybhai Ashokbhai Balar. Further, the FIR is registered against unknown persons, but the petitioner is in custody since 20.01.2026 and in the meantime, charge-sheet has already been submitted. Whatever may be the allegation against the petitioner, it is only allegation at this stage, but the allegation is based on documentary evidence, however, such documents must have been collected in the course of investigation. No material has been collected to suggest that the petitioner would abscond or pose threat to the witnesses, if released on bail. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and on consideration of the materials placed on record and keeping in view the account in question stated to be operated by Vijaybhai Ashokbhai Balar, this Court without expressing any view on merit admits the petitioner to bail, but subject to certain conditions.

5. 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 Lakh) 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 with following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court and he shall deposit his pass-port before the learned trial Court and, if he is not having any pass-port, he may swear an affidavit to that effect;

(ii) The petitioner shall not threaten/ influence/ induce/ coerce any of the witnesses acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them disclosing such facts before the Court;

(iii) The petitioner shall co-operate the trial.

6. 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

Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 02nd Day of September, of 2026/ Jayakrushna Digitally Signed Signed by: JAYAKRUSHNA DASH Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 02-Sep-2026 20:06:14 Signature Not Verified