Manoranjan Rout vs State Of Odisha

V. Narasingh, J

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The Petitioner is an accused in connection with C.T. Case No.1976 of 2025, pending on the file of learned S.D.J.M. Bhubaneswar, arising out of CID Cyber Crime P.S. Case No.35 of 2025 for commission of the alleged offence under Sections 318(2)/ 318(4)/ 319(2)/ 336(2)/ 336(3)/ 338/ 340(2)/ 61(2)/ 3(5) of BNS r/w Section 66 (C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Learned counsel, on instruction, submits that except the present BLAPL, no other bail application of the Petitioner relating to the aforementioned P.S. case is pending in any other Court.

Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for bail U/s.483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) by the learned ADJ-cum-Special Judge, (CBI-II), Bhubaneswar by order dated 19.02.2026 in the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed.

The case of the prosecution is that on 26.06.2025, the informant, Sushim Kumar Dalabehera, was browsing on Facebook regarding stock matters. He received a message on WhatsApp account No. ********83 from a person who introduced herself as Anjali Meheta and offered to provide stock recommendations. The said Anjali Meheta added the informant to a WhatsApp group called "RCL Smart Canes", where the members shared their views on the stock market. Gradually, the informant came in contact with one Sridhar Rangarajan. Thereafter, the informant received several account numbers to deposit money towards investment in the stock market. During joining the group, he had given his Aadhaar card, phone number and other details in the group. It is further alleged that, as per the persuasion given through the phone bearing No. 9978462183, he invested in bulk trading, IPOs and pools of stocks. All his investments and profits were available in an application called "RCL-PML". Seeing hefty profits, he started investing more. In the month of July, 2025, he invested in an IPO and subsequently joined another WhatsApp group and made investments. During the period from 11.07.2025 to 13.09.2025, he invested Rs. 2,01,50,000/- in the second WhatsApp group called "5Paisa V10705 Traders Hub". However, his investment was not shown in the WhatsApp account provided by the said group. He realized that he had been trapped in a cyber crime and, accordingly, on 14.10.2025 approached the Supdt. of Police, CID CB, Cuttack, for necessary action.

During the course of investigation, since the amount of Rs.19,61,000/- out of the invested amount referred to herein above (Rs. 2,01,50,000/-) was transferred to the account of the Petitioner in ICICI Bank, registered in the name of Maa Youshoda Equipments Pvt. Ltd., the Petitioner was taken into custody on 21.01.2026 and, after conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed on 20.04.2026. While filing such charge sheet, the defense of the Petitioner that he is a victim of circumstances was also taken note of and, taking into account his complicity, the charge sheet was filed keeping the investigation open.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. S.N. Das, while submitting that the Petitioner is innocent and is entitled to be released on bail on account of filing of the charge sheet, also assails his very arrest, inter alia, on the ground of infraction of the judgment of the Apex Court in the cases of Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2531, Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradhesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1228 and Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254.

To appreciate the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner, it is necessary to advert to the provision as contained in Section 47 of the BNSS, which reads as under:

"xxx xxx xxx

"Section 47. Person arrested to be informed of grounds of arrest and of right to bail.- (1) Every police officer or other person arresting any person without warrant shall forthwith communicate to him full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest.

(2) Where a police officer arrests without warrant any person other than a person accused of a non-bailable offence, he shall inform the person arrested that he is entitled to be released on bail and that he may arrange for sureties on his behalf.

xxx xxx xxx"

(emphasized)

Referring to the affidavit in opposition filed by the learned counsel for the State asserting that there is no infraction of Section 47 of the BNSS as well as Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution, he submits that there is no violation of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) and other judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the Petitioner.

It is apt to note from the recitals before the learned Trial Court that there was no challenge regarding infraction of Section 47 of the BNSS. Be that as it may, there is no embargo for the Petitioner to raise such issue before this Court.

And, to fortify his submission, learned counsel for the State relied on the arrest memo as well as the intimation of grounds of arrest, wherein the accused himself has signed along with a relative of his. The grounds of arrest run thus:-

"xxx xxx xxx

The above arrestee found involved in above referred case. He opened a mule current account in ICICI Bank, Balakati branch, Bhubaneswar and he used that account for fraudulent transactions. A cash of Rs. Nineteen Lakh Sixty-One Thousand Rupees (₹19,61,000) credited to that account.

The intimation is being given to you in compliance with Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023.

xxx xxx xxx"

On perusal and evaluation of the same, on the touchstone of the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Anr., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269, and in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra), this Court is not persuaded to hold that, ex facie, there has been infraction of the provision as contained in Section 47 of the BNSS and, therefore, the contention of the Petitioner on this ground stands negated.

In the case of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51, while laying down the guidelines for consideration of bail applications, the Apex Court has placed economic offences on a distinct plane and a further distinction has also been made amongst economic offences inter se between the parties and offences affecting society at large.

The present case, in the considered view of this Court, comes within the category of offences affecting society at large, being a cyber fraud, and hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain this bail application.

Liberty is granted to the Petitioner to renew the prayer before the learned Trial Court. On such prayer, the learned Trial Court shall consider the application so filed independently, without being prejudiced by its earlier order or the order passed in this case, also taking into account that the consideration by the learned Courts was during the course of investigation.

The BLAPL accordingly, stands disposed of.