IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL NO.5785 of 2026 CNR No.ODHC010424062026 (In the matter of application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023). Himansu Sekhar Behura … Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha … Opposite Party For Petitioner : Mr. T.K. Mohanty, Advocate For Opposite Party : Mr. M.R. Patra, Addl. PP CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:18.08.2026(ORAL) G. Satapathy, J. 1. This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with EOW, Bhubaneswar PS Case No.15 of 2025 corresponding to CT Case No.18 of 2025 pending in the file of learned Presiding Officer, Designated Court under OPID Act, Cuttack, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.420/467/468/471/120-B of IPC r/w Section 66(D) of IT Act. 2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he made false representation to the informant and some BLAPL No.5785 of 2026 Page 1 of 4 others for having contacts at high levels and accordingly, persuaded the informant and others to invest money in their firm by showing forged documents with assurance of high returns and accordingly, the informant invested a sum of Rs.85Lakhs, but during the course of investigation, it is learnt that not only the informant was cheated in this manner, but also others namely, Ashish Kumar Sahoo, Aditya Ranjan Panda, Hrushikesh Dash, Arun Parija, Shradhanjali Nayak and Sunita Rout were cheated to the tune of around Rs.1,99,55,000/-.

On this incident, an FIR was registered vide EOW, Bhubaneswar PS Case No.15 of 2025 which culminated in submission of charge-sheet for commission of offence punishable U/Ss.420/467/468/471/120-B of the IPC read with Sec. 66(D) of IT Act, 2000, however, the petitioner being found to be prima facie involved in this case was taken into custody, but after unsuccessfully approaching the concerned Court for securing his liberty, the petitioner is before this Court in this bail application. 3. Heard, Mr. Tanmaya Kumar Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.R. Patra, learned BLAPL No.5785 of 2026 Page 2 of 4 Additional Public Prosecutor in the matter and perused the record.

4. Admittedly, the bail application of the present petitioner was rejected on 18.02.2026 by this Court in BLAPL No.13016 of 2025 and, thereafter, the petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail before the learned trial Court just after three months on 22.05.2026. In support of the plea of bail, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the certified copy of the order sheets dated 22.06.2026, 01.07.2026, 14.07.2026, 27.07.2026 and 05.08.2026, which are all the dates subsequent to the bail application filed by the petitioner before the learned trial Court. It is not understood as to under what circumstance the petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail in the learned trial Court just after three months, but without any change in circumstance. The aforesaid conduct of the petitioner is highly deplorable. Besides, this Court by way of a detail order has rejected the bail application of the petitioner earlier and the allegation against the petitioner is not a simple allegation, rather it is an allegation of financial fraud of huge amount and the BLAPL No.5785 of 2026 Page 3 of 4 alleged outstanding amount against the petitioner has swelled up to Rs.3,51,24,404/- in the meantime. The aforesaid investment alleged to have been taken from the informant and others on the assurance of high returns @ 4% per month. Besides, the offence U/S.467 of IPC prescribes punishment up to imprisonment for life. In the aforesaid facts and circumstance and taking into account the nature and gravity of the offences as alleged against the petitioner vis-à-vis the accusations sought to be brought against him and regard being had to the materials placed on record, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. Hence, the bail application of the petitioner stands rejected. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. A copy of this order be immediately transmitted to the learned Court in seisin over the matter. (G. Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 18th day of August, 2026/Subhasmita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASMITA DAS Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 18-Aug-2026 20:55:00 BLAPL No.5785 of 2026 Page 4 of 4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL NO.5785 of 2026 CNR No.ODHC010424062026 (In the matter of application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023). Himansu Sekhar Behura … Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha … Opposite Party For Petitioner : Mr. T.K. Mohanty, Advocate For Opposite Party : Mr. M.R. Patra, Addl. PP CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:18.08.2026(ORAL) G. Satapathy, J. 1. This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with EOW, Bhubaneswar PS Case No.15 of 2025 corresponding to CT Case No.18 of 2025 pending in the file of learned Presiding Officer, Designated Court under OPID Act, Cuttack, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.420/467/468/471/120-B of IPC r/w Section 66(D) of IT Act. 2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he made false representation to the informant and some BLAPL No.5785 of 2026 Page 1 of 4 others for having contacts at high levels and accordingly, persuaded the informant and others to invest money in their firm by showing forged documents with assurance of high returns and accordingly, the informant invested a sum of Rs.85Lakhs, but during the course of investigation, it is learnt that not only the informant was cheated in this manner, but also others namely, Ashish Kumar Sahoo, Aditya Ranjan Panda, Hrushikesh Dash, Arun Parija, Shradhanjali Nayak and Sunita Rout were cheated to the tune of around Rs.1,99,55,000/-.

On this incident, an FIR was registered vide EOW, Bhubaneswar PS Case No.15 of 2025 which culminated in submission of charge-sheet for commission of offence punishable U/Ss.420/467/468/471/120-B of the IPC read with Sec. 66(D) of IT Act, 2000, however, the petitioner being found to be prima facie involved in this case was taken into custody, but after unsuccessfully approaching the concerned Court for securing his liberty, the petitioner is before this Court in this bail application. 3. Heard, Mr. Tanmaya Kumar Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.R. Patra, learned BLAPL No.5785 of 2026 Page 2 of 4 Additional Public Prosecutor in the matter and perused the record.

4. Admittedly, the bail application of the present petitioner was rejected on 18.02.2026 by this Court in BLAPL No.13016 of 2025 and, thereafter, the petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail before the learned trial Court just after three months on 22.05.2026. In support of the plea of bail, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the certified copy of the order sheets dated 22.06.2026, 01.07.2026, 14.07.2026, 27.07.2026 and 05.08.2026, which are all the dates subsequent to the bail application filed by the petitioner before the learned trial Court. It is not understood as to under what circumstance the petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail in the learned trial Court just after three months, but without any change in circumstance. The aforesaid conduct of the petitioner is highly deplorable. Besides, this Court by way of a detail order has rejected the bail application of the petitioner earlier and the allegation against the petitioner is not a simple allegation, rather it is an allegation of financial fraud of huge amount and the BLAPL No.5785 of 2026 Page 3 of 4 alleged outstanding amount against the petitioner has swelled up to Rs.3,51,24,404/- in the meantime. The aforesaid investment alleged to have been taken from the informant and others on the assurance of high returns @ 4% per month. Besides, the offence U/S.467 of IPC prescribes punishment up to imprisonment for life. In the aforesaid facts and circumstance and taking into account the nature and gravity of the offences as alleged against the petitioner vis-à-vis the accusations sought to be brought against him and regard being had to the materials placed on record, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. Hence, the bail application of the petitioner stands rejected. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. A copy of this order be immediately transmitted to the learned Court in seisin over the matter. (G. Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 18th day of August, 2026/Subhasmita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASMITA DAS Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 18-Aug-2026 20:55:00 BLAPL No.5785 of 2026 Page 4 of 4