Orissa High Court
Susanta Kumar Samal vs State Of Odisha …. Opposite Party on 12 March, 2025
Author: V. Narasingh
Bench: V. Narasingh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ABLAPL No.2045 of 2025
Susanta Kumar Samal .... Petitioner
Mr. S.S. Rao, Sr. Advocate
Mr. A. Mishra, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. P.S. Nayak, AGA
ABLAPL No.1715 of 2025
Soumya Sankar Chakra .... Petitioner
@ Raja
Mr. A. Mohanty, Sr. Advocate
Mr. A. Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. P.S. Nayak, AGA
ABLAPL No.1775 of 2025
1. Sudhanshu Sekhar .... Petitioners
Naik
2. Samir Kumar Jena
3. Sadasiba Samal
Mr. A. Mohanty, Sr. Advocate
Mr. A. Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. P.S. Nayak, AGA
Page 1 of 18
CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
DATE OF HEARING :11.03.2025
DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 12.03.2025
V. Narasingh, J.
1. Since all the ABLAPLs relate to the same
FIR, on the consent of the learned Senior Counsels
for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the
State, they are taken up together for consideration
and are disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Heard Mr. S.S. Rao, learned Senior
Counsel for the Petitioner in ABLAPL No.2045 of
2025 and Mr. A. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel
for the Petitioners in ABLAPL Nos.1715 and 1775 of
2025 and Mr. P.S. Nayak, learned Additional
Government Advocate for the State.
3. The Petitioners are seeking pre-arrest bail
in connection with C.T. Case No.04(C) of 2025
pending on the file of learned ADJ-cum-OPID,
Balasore, arising out of E.O.W. Bhubaneswar P.S.
Case No.3 of 2025 for commission of offences
punishable under Sections 406/ 409/ 420/ 467/ 468/
471/ 120-B of IPC.
4. It is apt to note here that none of the
Petitioners have been named as accused in the
aforementioned P.S. Case registered by Economic
Page 2 of 18
Offence Wing and it is also on record that both the
named accused persons Manas Ranjan Barik and
Utkal Das have been taken into custody.
5. It is the allegation of the prosecution that
because of political patronage without being a
member of Gandha Mardhan Loading Agency &
Transporting Co-operative Society Ltd., Suakati
registered under the Orissa Co-Operative Societies
Act, 1962, the Petitioner (Soumya Sankar Chakra
@ Raja) in ABLAPL No.1715 of 2025 exercised such
clout that at his behest the illegalities were
committed and the other Petitioners have also had
an active role in siphoning off the funds of the
society.
6. It is further submitted, referring to the
materials on record, that the main object of the
society was to promote economic interest of its
members through wagon loading and unloading,
transporting and supply of labours and goods etc.
in the Gandhamardhan Mines area under the
Odisha Mining Corporation, Suakati and other
companies in the said area as and when required
and for fulfilling such avowed object, members
were enrolled in different classes i.e. A, B and C.
7. It is stated that since large scale
irregularities were alleged in the FIR, found to be
prima facie established, the FIR named accused
Page 3 of 18
were taken into custody and custodial interrogation
of the Petitioners is imperative to unearth the
truth.
8. To fortify their assertion, the prosecution
has filed an objection to the prayer for grant of
anticipatory bail for the Petitioners in both the
cases i.e. ABLAPL Nos.1715 and 1775 of 2025 and
a reply to the same has also been submitted by
the Petitioners.
9. Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel for
the Petitioners in ABLAPL Nos.1715 and 1775 of
2025 submits that admittedly the Petitioners are
neither named accused nor the members of the
cooperative society in question and the informant
is no way connected with the affairs of the society
nor is a resident of the area yet, on the basis of an
FIR filed at his behest witch hunt is being done in
which the Petitioners have become the scapegoats.
10. Such a submission regarding the status of
the Informant is reiterated by the learned Senior
Counsel Mr. Rao appearing for the Petitioner in
ABLAPL No.2045 of 2025.
11. It is the further submission of the learned
Senior Counsel for the Petitioner (Soumya Sankar
Chakra @ Raja) in ABLAPL No.1715 of 2025 that
he joined the investigation and only because he did
not succumb to the pressure and did not make any
Page 4 of 18
self-incriminating statement, keeping in view the
constitutional embargo under Article 20(3) of the
Constitution regarding self-incrimination, that
ought not to weigh with this Court in considering
his pre-arrest bail application.
12. To substantiate their allegations, learned
Additional Government Advocate for the EOW, Mr.
P.S. Nayak, inter alia, relied on the statement of
one Manoranjan Khuntia, who is a „A‟ category
member of the Cooperative Society in question. It
is stated that Petitioner (Soumya Sankar Chakra @
Raja) in ABLAPL No.1715 of 2025 without even
being a member of the society was running the
affairs of the society along with his cronies
including the Petitioner (Susanta Kumar Samal) in
ABLAPL No.2045 of 2025 and a parallel office was
running in the house of the Petitioner (Susanta
Kumar Samal).
Referring to the materials on record on the
basis of the ongoing investigation, it is submitted
that the amount of Rs.7,36,74,000/- (Rupees
Seven Crores Thirty-Six Lakhs Seventy-Four
Thousand) has been withdrawn from the account
of co-operative society via self-cheques out of
which sum of Rs.2,76,70,000/- (Rupees Two
Crores Seventy-Six Lakhs Seventy Thousand), sum
of Rs.95,40,000/- (Rupees Ninety-Five Lakhs Forty
Page 5 of 18
Thousand) and a sum of Rs.3,64,64,000/- (Rupees
Three Crore Sixty-Four Lakhs Sixty-Four
Thousand) has been withdrawn by the Petitioner
Nos.1, 2 and 3 (Sudhanshu Sekhar Naik, Samir
Kumar Jena and Sadasiba Samal) in ABLAPL
No.1775 of 2025 respectively, who are stated to be
the key associates of the Petitioner (Mr. Soumya
Sankar Chakra @ Raja) in ABLAPL No.1715 of
2025.
13. It is the allegation of the prosecution that
the said amount in the name of periphery
development work was being siphoned off. The
photostat copies of the self- cheques of the
aforesaid three accused relating to such withdrawal
were placed for perusal of the Court.
14. Learned counsel for the State also relied
on the reports of the Block Development Officers of
Sadar Block, Keonjhar and Banspal and of the
Regional Manager, Regional Office, Gandhmardan
of OMC, Odisha that no periphery work has been
executed by the society in question.
It is revealed from the statement of the
Regional Officer, Gandhamardan that the OMC has
undertaken CSR work in 14 villages and it is stated
that the society in question has not taken up any
developmental work inside the mines area as per
Page 6 of 18
the records available with the OMC which is a
public sector undertaking.
15. The prosecution also relies on the
statement of one Premananda Barik recorded
under Section 183(5) of the BNSS, 2023. He is the
proprietor of a petrol pump namely, Maa Kali
Kishan Seva Kendra (KSK), Pandapada. It is borne
out from his statement that he had business
dealings with one Sankar Roadways which
admittedly belongs to the Petitioner (Mr. Soumya
Sankar Chakra @ Raja) in ABLAPL No.1715 of
2025.
It comes to light from his statement that
for squaring of the bills in respect of Sankar
Roadways, the cheques of the co-operative
societies in question were submitted and it is
stated that the amount of Rs.8 Crore has been
paid by the co-operative society in question on
account of the bills pertaining to the Sankar
Transport. The funds flow statement from
Gandhamardhan Loading Agency to Maa Kali KSK
was also placed during course of hearing.
16. On perusal of the case Diary, it is revealed
that an amount of Rs.1,55,95,625/- (Rupees One
Crore Fifty-Five Lakhs Ninety-Five Thousand Six
Hundred Twenty-Five) has been transferred from
the account of Petitioner No.3 (Sadasiba Samal) in
Page 7 of 18
ABLAPL No.1775 of 2025 to the account of the wife
of the Petitioner (Mr. Soumya Sankar Chakra @
Raja) in ABLAPL No.1715 of 2025.
17. It is the further case of the prosecution, on
scrutiny of the statements of the bank accounts of
Gandhamardhan Cooperative Society that an
amount of Rs.1,60,47,140/- (Rupees One Crore
Sixty Lakhs Forty-Seven Thousand One Hundred
Forty) has been transferred to the accounts of
Sankar Roadways and that during investigation, it
came to the light that there is no voucher, bill or
any ledger accounts details qua the payment of
such an amount to the Sankar Roadways of which
the Petitioner (Mr. Soumya Sankar Chakra @ Raja)
in ABLAPL No.1715 of 2025 is the proprietor.
18. It is reiterated that during the course of
interrogation the Petitioner (Mr. Soumya Sankar
Chakra @ Raja) in BLAPL No.1715 of 2025 did not
extend any meaningful cooperation in the
investigation and hence, the objection to his pre-
arrest bail.
19. To fortify his submission, learned counsel
for the State relied on the following judgments;
i. Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation, (2013) 7 SCC
439
Page 8 of 18
ii. P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of
Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24
iii. Pravata Kumar Tripathy vs. Union of
India (C.B.I.), 2014 SCC Online Ori 407
More particularly reliance was placed on
paragraph 72 of the judgment in the case of P.
Chidambaram (Supra), which reads as under;
“72. We are conscious of the fact that
the legislative intent behind the
introduction of Section 438 CrPC is to
safeguard the individual’s personal liberty
and to protect him from the possibility of
being humiliated and from being
subjected to unnecessary police custody.
However, the court must also keep in
view that a criminal offence is not just an
offence against an individual, rather the
larger societal interest is at stake.
Therefore, a delicate balance is required
to be established between the two rights-
safeguarding the personal liberty of an
individual and the societal interest. It
cannot be said that refusal to grant
anticipatory bail would amount to denial
of the rights conferred upon the appellant
under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India.”
(Emphasized)
20. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for the
Petitioners Mr. Rao and Mr. Mohanty submit that
Page 9 of 18
the case is a fall out of political vendetta and since
all the allegations are based more or less on
documentary evidence, the custodial interrogation
is not necessary and relying on the order dated
21.03.2023 passed in the case of Satender
Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation and Anr., 2023 SCC OnLine SC
452 submit that the Apex Court has clarified that
the directions in the said case dated 11.07.2022 in
Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation and Anr., (2020) 10 SCC 51
apply in equal measure to cases of anticipatory bail
and the observation which is germane is extracted
hereunder;
“……………..we would like to clarify that
what we have enunciated qua bail would
equally apply to anticipatory bail cases.
Anticipatory bail after all is one of the
species of a bail”.
21. Referring to the same, it is submitted with
vehemence that since the case is based on
documentary evidence and the Petitioners are not
the named accused merely basing on the
statement of the co-accused recorded during
investigation, Petitioners should not suffer the
ignominy of being taken into custody.
Page 10 of 18
22. It is the further submission of the learned
Senior Counsel Mr. Mohanty on behalf of the
Petitioner in ABLAPL No.1715 of 2025 that in terms
of the direction of this Court the Petitioner has
joined the investigation and is all along ready and
willing to cooperate with the ongoing investigation
which is also the stand of the other accused
persons canvassed in the connected anticipatory
bail applications. Hence, custodial interrogation is
not warranted.
23. It is further submitted that all the
Petitioners have roots firmly entrenched in the
society as such there is no chance of their
absconding or interfering with the ongoing
investigation and that should weigh with this Court
in considering the prayer for pre-arrest bail and in
the event the Petitioners are granted pre-arrest
bail they can be put to strict terms so as to ensure
effective investigation.
24. The parameters for granting an
anticipatory bail in an economic offence has been
recently propounded by the Apex Court in the case
of Devinder Kumar Bansal vs. State of Punjab,
2025 SCC OnLine SC 488. The Apex Court has
reiterated the basic distinction of a bail and pre-
arrest bail. The paragraph 23 and 24 of the said
judgment is extracted hereunder;
Page 11 of 18
“23. The presumption of innocence, by
itself, cannot be the sole consideration for
grant of anticipatory bail. The presumption
of innocence is one of the considerations,
which the court should keep in mind while
considering the plea for anticipatory bail.
The salutary rule is to balance the cause of
the accused and the cause of public
justice. Over solicitous homage to the
accused’s liberty can, sometimes, defeat
the cause of public justice.
24. If liberty is to be denied to an
accused to ensure corruption free society,
then the courts should not hesitate in
denying such liberty. Where overwhelming
considerations in the nature aforesaid
require denial of anticipatory bail, it has to
be denied. It is altogether a different thing
to say that once the investigation is over
and charge-sheet is filed, the court may
consider to grant regular bail to a public
servant-accused of indulging in
corruption.”
This Court is conscious of the fact that the
Apex Court in the case of Devinder Kumar
Bansal (supra) was dealing with the corruption
charges against a public servant however the
principles governing the consideration of prayer for
anticipatory bail apply in equal measure in
accusations of present nature.
Page 12 of 18
25. In the case of State REP. by the C.B.I.
vs. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187, the Apex
Court while balancing the right of an accused vis-
à-vis the Investigating Agency has acknowledged
the qualitative difference in response to
interrogation when an accused is not “ensconced”
by the protective umbrella of pre-arrest bail.
Paragraph-6 of the said judgment is
extracted hereunder for convenience of reference;
“6. We find force in the submission of
the CBI that custodial interrogation is
qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than
questioning a suspect who is well
ensconced with a favourable order under
Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this
effective interrogation of a suspected
person is of tremendous advantage in
disinterring many useful informations and
also materials which would have been
concealed. Success in such interrogation
would elude if the suspected person knows
that he is well protected and insulated by a
pre-arrest bail order during the time he is
interrogated, Very often interrogation in
such a condition would reduce to a mere
ritual. The argument that the el custodial
interrogation is fraught with the danger of
the person being subjected to third-degree
methods need not be countenanced, for,
such an argument can be advanced by all
accused in all criminal cases. The Court
has to presume that responsible policePage 13 of 18
officers would conduct themselves in a
responsible manner and that those
entrusted with the task of disinterring
offences would not conduct themselves as
offenders.”
26. In the case of Devinder Kumar Bansal
(supra), the Apex Court referred with approval to
the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the
case of State of M.P. vs. Ram Kishna Balothia,
(1995) 3 SCC 221 which held that an anticipatory
bail cannot be granted as a matter of right and it is
essentially a statutory right and its non-application
to certain special category of offences cannot be
considered as violative of Article 21 [Paragraph-18
of Judgment of the Apex Court in Devinder
Kumar Bansal (supra)] and it has also reiterated
the observation of 41st Report of the Law
Commission that:
“…………. power to grant anticipatory bail
should be exercised in very exceptional
cases.”
(Emphasized)
27. The prayer of the Petitioner for grant of
anticipatory bail has to be considered on the touch
stone of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court
in the case of Devinder Kumar Bansal (supra)
and also keeping in view the qualitative difference
as noted by the Apex Court in interrogation when
Page 14 of 18
an accused is not protected by pre-arrest bail in
Anil Sharma (supra).
28. During the course of hearing, it has come
to the fore that the Petitioner (Soumya Sankar
Chakra @ Raja) in ABLAPL No.1715 of 2025 is
cited as an accused in the following cases;
1.Keonjhar Sadar P.S. Case No.189 of 2021
2.Daitari P.S. Case No.14 of 2024
3.Keonjhar Town P.S. Case No.122 of 2005
4.Keonjhar Town P.S. Case No.71 of 2010
5.Keonjhar Town P.S. Case No.192 of 2012
6.Keonjhar Town P.S. Case No.195 of 2012
7.Keonjhar Town P.S. Case No.194 of 2012
8.Keonjhar Town P.S. Case No.193 of 2012
9.Pandapada P.S. Case No.65 of 2014
10. Keonjhar Town P.S. Case No.99 of 2019
11. Keonjhar Town P.S. Case No.308 of
2024
12. Keonjhar Town P.S. Case No.17 of 2025
13. Keonjhar Town P.S. Case No.18 of 2025
28-A. With reference to the cases at Serial
No.12, it is stated that the said case is at the
instance of the very same informant who is the
informant in the case at hand and the Petitioner
has been protected by pre-arrest bail. Hence, it is
Page 15 of 18
submitted that to feed fat his grudge this false
case has been foisted against the Petitioner.
29. It is also stated that the Petitioner No.3
(Sadasiba Samal) in ABLAPL No.1775 of 2025 is
implicated in the following three cases;
1. Keonjhar Town P.S. Case No.308 of
2024
2. Keonjhar Town P.S. Case No.17 of 2025
3. Keonjhar Town P.S. Case No.18 of 2025
And, in the cases at Serial No.1, the prosecution
has taken recourse to the procedure under Section
41-A of the Cr.P.C. and so far as the cases at
Serial Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, the Petitioner is
protected by pre-arrest bail by virtue of orders
passed by this Court in ABLAPL No.576 and 510 of
2025 respectively.
30. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Rao appearing
for Petitioner (Susanta Kumar Samal) in ABLAPL
No.2045 of 2025 submits that he has been cited as
an accused in Keonjhar Sadar P.S. Case No.141 of
2002 under Section 341/323/506/34 of IPC and
section 25/27 arms act.
31. It is the further submission of learned
Senior Counsel Mr. Rao for the Petitioner (Susanta
Kumar Samal) in ABLAPL No.2045 of 2025 that the
Page 16 of 18
Petitioner is a „C‟ category member of the society
and he is unnecessarily being victimized.
32. Considering the nature of allegations qua
the Petitioner (Soumya Sankar Chakra @ Raja) in
ABLAPL No.1715 of 2025 who according to the
prosecution is the principal accused and the prima
facie link, which the prosecution has been able to
establish between the Petitioner in ABLAPL
No.1715 of 2025 with Petitioners in ABLAPL
No.1775 as well as ABLAPL No.2045 of 2025 which
has been referred to herein above, this Court finds
force in the submission made by the learned
counsel for the State that the custodial
interrogation is imperative in the case at hand to
unravel the truth and interrogation would become
a “mere ritual” in the event they are protected by
pre-arrest bail.
33. On a perspicuous analysis of materials on
record and on perusal of the case diary, this Court
is not persuaded to hold that the Petitioners have
been able to make out an exceptional case for
grant of pre-arrest bail.
34. All the ABLAPLs being devoid of merit are
accordingly rejected.
35. The interim orders stand vacated.
36. It is needless to state that the
observations made herein are only for the purpose
Page 17 of 18
of consideration of the prayer of the Petitioners for
pre-arrest bail and in the event the Petitioners are
taken into custody and seek regular bail the same
shall be considered on its own merit without being
influenced by the judgment of this Court in
rejecting the prayer of the Petitioners for
anticipatory bail.
(V. NARASINGH)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 12th March, 2025/Santoshi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SANTOSHI LENKA
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 12-Mar-2025 18:31:13
Page 18 of 18