DEBASISH KUMAR DAS vs STATE OF ODISHA
- Court
- Odisha High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
,
ABLAPL No.8557 of 2026
(CNR No. ODHC010531282026)
With
ABLAPL Nos.8559,8572,8649,8724 and 9141 of
2026
(CNR Nos. ODHC010531312026, ODHC010539602026,
ODHC010539402026, ODHC010539312026,
ODHC010580552026 respectively)
In the matter of applications under Section 482 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
…
Sri Debasish Kumar Das
(In ABLAPL No.8557 of 2026)
( CNR No. ODHC010531282026 )
Sri S Balgopal
(In ABLAPL No.8559 of 2026)
(CNR No. ODHC010531312026)
Debika Pradhan
(In ABLAPL No.8572 of 2026)
(CNR No. ODHC010539602026)
Rashmita Sahoo
(In ABLAPL No.8649 of 2026)
(CNR No. ODHC010539402026)
Pritisnigdha Priyadarshini
(In ABLAPL No.8724 of 2026)
(CNR No. ODHC010539312026)
Shakti Prasad Das
(In ABLAPL No.9141 of 2026)
(CNR No. ODHC010580552026)
…
Petitioners
-versus-
State of Odisha
… Opp. Party
1 20
Page of
ABLAPL Nos.8557, 8559,8572,8649,8724
and 9141 of 2026
Advocate(s) appeared in this case
For Petitioners - Mr. A.K. Mohapatra, Advocate
(In ABLAPL Nos.8557, 8559 &
8649 of 2026)
Ms. D. Mohapatra, Advocate
(In ABLAPL No.8572 of 2026)
Mr. H.P. Rath, Advocate
(In ABLAPL No.8724 of 2026)
Mr. S. Mohapatra, Sr. Advocate
along with Mr. P. Mohapatra,
Advocate
(In ABLAPL No.9141 of 2026)
For Opp. Party - Mr.S. Panigrahi,
Addl. Standing Counsel (In all
ABLAPLs)
CORAM : MR. JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
DATE OF HEARING : 27.08.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 03.09.2026
----------------------------------------------------------------
V. Narasingh, J.
1. Since all the ABLAPLs relate to EOW P.S.
Case No.9 of 2026, on the consent of the
parties, they are taken up together and are
disposed of by this common order.
2. Heard learned Senior Counsel and
learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned
counsel for the State.
2 20
Page of
ABLAPL Nos.8557, 8559,8572,8649,8724
and 9141 of 2026
3. The Petitioners are seeking pre-arrest
bail in connection with C.T. Case No.12 of 2026
pending on the file of learned Presiding Officer,
Designated Court under OPID Act, Cuttack
arising out of Economic Offence Wing P.S. Case
No.09 of 2026 for commission of offences
1 2 3
punishable under Sections 120-B / 420 / 409 /
4 5 6 7 8
419 / 467 / 468 / 471 / 477-A of the Indian
1
120-B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy .—(1) Whoever is a party
to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death,
imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or
upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the
punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if
he had abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal
conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding
six months, or with fine or with both.
2
420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property .—
Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to
deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole
or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed,
and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
3
409. Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker,
merchant or agent
.—Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with
property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public
servant or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor,
broker, attorney or agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of
that property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten
years, and shall also be liable to fine.
4
419. Punishment for cheating by personation .—Whoever cheats by
personation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
5
467. Forgery of valuable security, will, etc
.—Whoever forges a
document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an
authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any
person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the
principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any
3 20
Page of
ABLAPL Nos.8557, 8559,8572,8649,8724
and 9141 of 2026
9
Penal Code, 1860 r/w Section 66-D of
Information Technology (Amendment) Act,
2008.
4. The allegations of the prosecution,
instituted on a written report lodged by the
Deputy General Manager and Zonal Head,
Cuttack Zone, UCO Bank, reveal that there
were serious financial irregularities in the
money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document
purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of
money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable
property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for
life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
6
468. Forgery for purpose of cheating
.—Whoever commits forgery,
intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for
the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be
liable to fine.
7
471. Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record .—
Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or
electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged
document or electronic record, shall be punished in the same manner as if
he had forged such document or electronic record.
8
477-A. Falsification of accounts
.—Whoever, being a clerk, officer or
servant, or employed or acting in the capacity of a clerk, officer or
servant, willfully, and with intent to defraud, destroys, alters, mutilates or
falsifies any book, electronic record, paper, writing, valuable security or
account which belongs to or is in the possession of his employer, or has
been received by him for or on behalf of his employer, or willfully, and
with intent to defraud, makes or abets the making of any false entry in,
or omits or alters or abets the omission or alteration of any material
particular from or in, any such book, electronic record, paper, writing,
valuable security or account, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with
fine, or with both.
9
66-D. Punishment for cheating by personation by using computer
Whoever, by means of any communication device or
resource.—
computer resource cheats by personation, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three
years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to one lakh
rupees.
4 20
Page of
ABLAPL Nos.8557, 8559,8572,8649,8724
and 9141 of 2026
sanctioning, processing and disbursal in
respect of 22 UCO Car Loans and 2 Business
Loans, involving an amount of approximately
Rs.325.43 lakhs (Rupees Three Crore Twenty-
Five Lakhs Forty-Three Thousand only) during
the relevant period.
5. Learned counsel for the State, Mr.
Panigrahi, submits that the allegations of
deliberate manipulation of Banking Records,
fabrication and misuse of documents, creation
of an artificial repayment history and diversion
and siphoning of bank funds are under
investigation, so also the role ascribed to each
of the Petitioners.
Hence, they ought not to be protected
by pre-arrest bail and to substantiate his claim,
he relies on the following judgments:
i. P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of
10
Enforcement
ii. Directorate of Enforcement v. P.V.
11
Prabhakar Rao
10
P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement , (2019) 9 SCC 24.
11
Directorate of Enforcement v. P.V. Prabhakar Rao , (1997) 6 SCC 647.
5 20
Page of
ABLAPL Nos.8557, 8559,8572,8649,8724
and 9141 of 2026
iii. Y.S. Jaganmohon Reddy vs. Central
12
Bureau of Investigation
iv. State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji
13
Porwal
v. Nimmagadda Prasad v. Central
14
Bureau of Investigation
6. Per contra, learned Senior counsel and
counsel for the Petitioners submit that, since the
allegations are essentially based on documentary
evidence and the Petitioners have deep roots in
the society, there is no scope for them to evade
arrest or interfere with the ongoing investigation,
which is also not the allegation of the
prosecution.
7. It is his further submission that the
Petitioner in ABLAPL No.8557 of 2026 (Debashis
Kumar Das), the Petitioner in ABLAPL No.8572 of
2026 (Debika Pradhan), the Petitioner in ABLAPL
No.8724 of 2026 (Priti Snigdha Priyadarshini),
the Petitioner in ABLAPL No.8559 of 2026 (S.
Balgopal) and the Petitioner in ABLAPL No.8649
of 2026 (Rashmita Sahoo) are employees of the
12
Y.S. Jaganmohon Reddy vs. CBI , (2013) 7 SCC 439.
13
State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal , (1987) 2 SCC 364.
14
Nimmagadda Prasad vs. CBI , (2013) 7 SCC 466.
6 20
Page of
ABLAPL Nos.8557, 8559,8572,8649,8724
and 9141 of 2026
Bank and the Petitioner in ABLAPL No.9141 of
2026 (Shakti Prasad Das) is the brother of the
principal accused-Shiba Prasad Das.
8. So far as Petitioner-Debashis Kumar Das, in
ABLAPL No.8557 of 2026, is concerned, it is
submitted by the learned counsel that the said
Petitioner, while functioning as Assistant
Manager, UCO Bank at Salepur Branch from
December 2023 to November 2025, worked with
the principal accused-Shiba Prasad Das from
March 2024 to February 2025.
During this period, a loan amount of
Rs.8,60,000/- was granted in favour of one
Durga Prasad Das. Though the application was
incomplete, an amount of Rs.8,59,646/- was
remitted to an SBI account, which ultimately
found its way to the account of the principal
accused-Shiba Prasad Das.
Similar allegations have been levelled in
respect of loans granted to Bikram Keshari Jena
for an amount of Rs.9,49,823/- (M/s OSL Motors
Pvt. Ltd.). Amount of Rs.9,99,823/- to Amulya
Nayak and a loan sanctioned in favour of Sankar
7 20
Page of
ABLAPL Nos.8557, 8559,8572,8649,8724
and 9141 of 2026
Behera and Kabita Nayak to the tune of Rs.16.50
lakh, when the Petitioner (Debashis Kumar Das)
was the Appraising Officer, against fabricated
quotations of M/s Utkal Automobiles, and the
money was automatically credited to the account
of the principal accused-Shiba Prasad Das.
Similar allegations also relate to one
Abhimanyu Behera, who was sanctioned a loan
of Rs.10,00,000/- and the same modus operandi
was adopted to defraud the bank.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for
the State that there is prima facie material
regarding systemic diversification of the loan
account of the principal accused. Hence, the
Petitioners ought not to be protected by pre-
arrest bail.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner, on the
other hand, submits that he inevitably followed
the instructions as received. Hence, no
culpability can be attached to him and there is no
money trail to his account. He may, therefore, be
protected by pre-arrest bail.
8 20
Page of
ABLAPL Nos.8557, 8559,8572,8649,8724
and 9141 of 2026
9. So far as Petitioner-Debika Pradhan, in
ABLAPL No.8572 of 2026, is concerned, it is
submitted by the learned counsel that the
Petitioner (Debika Pradhan), while she was
posted as Assistant Manager at Salepur UCO
Branch from April 2021 to September 2024,
worked with the principal accused-Shiba Prasad
Das from April 2024 to September 2024.
The allegation against her is of opening
savings bank accounts without proper
genuineness of customers.
It is the submission of the learned counsel
for the State that, notwithstanding that she
lacked the sanctioning authority for the disbursal
of loans, the role played by her in account
opening and transaction-entry logs assumes
significance in the light of the investigation into
the larger conspiracy involving 22 UCO Car Loans
and 02 Business Loans, as already stated.
Hence, no leniency ought to be shown to her.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner in ABLAPL
No.8572 of 2026 further submits that admittedly
9 20
Page of
ABLAPL Nos.8557, 8559,8572,8649,8724
and 9141 of 2026
there is no money trail in the account of the
Petitioner-Debika Pradhan and that she was not
the sanctioning Authority and her case,
therefore, stands on a different footing and she
ought not to be denied pre-arrest bail.
10. So far as Petitioner-Pritisnigdha
Priyadarshini in ABLAPL No.8724 of 2026 is
concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel
that the Petitioner, while she was posted as
Assistant Manager at Salepur Branch, UCO Bank
from September 2024 to November 2025,
worked with the principal accused-Shiba Prasad
Das, who was functioning as Branch Head. The
Petitioner-Pritisnigdha Priyadarshini was
responsible for customer identification, account
opening, due diligence, verification of KYC
documents and E-KYC creation, authorisation of
retail customer IDs, creation and authorisation of
new Savings Bank Accounts and
entry/processing of financial transactions.
The allegation against the present
Petitioner-Pritisnigdha Priyadarshini is that she
failed to conduct E-KYC in accordance with the
10 20
Page of
ABLAPL Nos.8557, 8559,8572,8649,8724
and 9141 of 2026
prescribed banking norms. Hence, her role is
being probed in relation to the 22 UCO Car Loans
and 2 Business Loans. On account of such
allegations, the prayer for pre-arrest bail is
registered.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner-
Pritisnigdha Priyadarshini submits that, at best,
the allegations against her are of procedural
lapses. Hence, the Petitioner, being a lady, may
be enlarged on pre-arrest bail.
11. So far as Petitioner-S. Balgopal in ABLAPL
No.8559 of 2026 is concerned, it is submitted by
the learned counsel that the Petitioner (S.
Balgopal), during his incumbency as Manager
(Advance-in-Charge), Salipur Branch of UCO
Bank from July 2021 to August 2024, worked
with the principal accused-Shiba Prasad Das from
February 2024 to August 2024. He was
responsible for processing/recommending loan
proposals and ensuring compliance with
prescribed banking procedure.
Learned counsel for the State, on the basis
of recitals of the Case Diary, submits that his
11 20
Page of
ABLAPL Nos.8557, 8559,8572,8649,8724
and 9141 of 2026
role as Recommending Officer in multiple loan
accounts, where essential borrower documents
and supporting records were found to be
fabricated or deficient, is the subject matter of
investigation.
There is an allegation against him relating to
the Car Loans of Deepak Kumar Behera,
Shubranshu Sekhar Sahu, Samir Kumar Sahoo,
Sankar Behera and Kabita Nayak.
Prima facie, the investigation indicates that
fabricated quotations were used, while the
amount involved, about Rs.16,50,000/-, was
transferred to the account of the principal
accused-Shiba Prasad Das, though Finacle
reflected the beneficiary as M/s Utkal
Automobiles.
The prayer for pre-arrest bail application is
opposed, inter alia, on the ground to probe the
background in which the Petitioner- S. Balgopal
ignored the apparent discrepancies.
The Petitioner’s (S. Balgopal) plea is similar
to those who were working in the bank, that he
12 20
Page of
ABLAPL Nos.8557, 8559,8572,8649,8724
and 9141 of 2026
merely followed the instructions of the Branch
Head and hence no complicity can be attached to
him and he ought to be released on pre-arrest
bail.
12. So far as Petitioner-Rashmita Sahoo in
ABLAPL No.8649 of 2026 is concerned, it is
submitted by the learned counsel that the
Petitioner during her tenure as Assistant Manager
at Old Secretariat Branch, Cuttack from August
2021 to July 2024, worked with the principal
accused-Shiba Prasad Das.
The allegation against her is that she
sanctioned UCO Car Loans to Sunanda Das for an
amount of Rs.9,50,000/-, to Sanghamitra Dash
for an amount of Rs.15,00,000/-, to Basanta
Kumar Routray for an amount of Rs.12,96,000/-
and to Rajib Agrawal for an amount of
Rs.38,98,000/-.
It is apt to note that, save and except in
relation to Sunanda Das, where the Petitioner
(Rashmita Sahoo) was the Recommending
Officer, in all other cases, the Petitioner was the
Appraising Officer.
13 20
Page of
ABLAPL Nos.8557, 8559,8572,8649,8724
and 9141 of 2026
13. So far as Petitioner-Shakti Prasad Das in
ABLAPL No.9141 of 2026 is concerned, it is
submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that the
allegation against the present Petitioner-Shakti
Prasad Das is on a different plane. He is
admittedly the brother of the principal accused-
Shiba Prasad Das and further submits with
vehemence that merely because he is the
brother of the principal accused, he has been
falsely implicated. Hence, he may be protected
by pre-arrest bail.
14. It is the case of the prosecution that
the Petitioner-Shakti Prasad Das had a Union
Bank account and the said account received
funds from the accounts operated by Shiba
Prasad Das.
It is submitted by the learned State counsel
that an amount of Rs.32,00,000/- was credited
on 09.06.2022 to the Petitioner’s (Shakti Prasad
Das) Union Bank account and immediate debits
of Rs.5,00,000/- each were made on
09.06.2022, 10.06.2022, 11.06.2022,
14 20
Page of
ABLAPL Nos.8557, 8559,8572,8649,8724
and 9141 of 2026
12.06.2022 and 13.06.2022 and Rs.2,00,000/-
on 14.06.2022, as has come to light.
On the basis of the transaction trail, the
prosecution seeks to establish prima facie that
funds from the account of the Petitioner-Shakti
Prasad Das were used for repayment of several
disputed loan accounts and repeated transactions
between the present Petitioner, the principal
accused-Shiba Prasad Das and the borrower
accounts would go to indicate that the Petitioner
had connived with his brother and the money
was routed through his account.
Per contra, learned counsel for the Petitioner
submits that it is a case of false implication and
only because he is the brother, he is being
sought to be implicated, as already noted.
15. This Court perused the Case Diary, which
prima facie indicates that loans were sanctioned
by violating all norms and the prescribed
procedure was followed in its complete breach
and Savings Bank accounts of the borrowers
were opened without any documentation at
Salepur Branch, as follows:
15 20
Page of
ABLAPL Nos.8557, 8559,8572,8649,8724
and 9141 of 2026
Sl.
Account No Name Account
No.
Opening date
1 04290110177594 Durga Prasad
Das
05.09.2024
2 04293211072195 Bikram Keshari
Jena
08.05.2025
3 04290110179048 Amulya Nayak 01.02.2025
4 04290110178850 Ajit Kumar
Subudhi
03.01.2025
5 04290110176368 Sankar Behera 29.06.2024
6 04290110178867 Gouranga
Nayak
03.01.2025
7 04293211072188 Abhimanyu
Behera
08.05.2025
8 04290110179819 Rajib Lochan
Sahoo
29.04.2025
9 04293211072478 Cheeranjib
Mohanty
19.05.2025
10 04290110176689 Deepak kumar
Behera
18.07.2024
11 04290110174944 Shuvranshu
Sekhar Sahu
30.03.2024
12 04290110176696 Samir Kumar
Sahoo
18.07.2024
13 04290110178256 Ashutosh
Mohapatra
04.11.2024
14 042901101708263 Soumya
Ranjan Mallik
04.11.2024
And the total amount involved, as per the
recitals of Case Diary comes to Rs.1,26,85,000/- (11
Loanees) and the break up the amounts as stated as
under:
16 20
Page of
ABLAPL Nos.8557, 8559,8572,8649,8724
and 9141 of 2026
SN Account No Name
1 04290110177594 Durga Prasad
Das
Rs. 8.60 Lakhs
2 04293211072195 Bikram
Keshari Jena
Rs. 9.50 lakhs
3 04290110176368 Sankar Behera Rs. 16.50 lakhs
4 04290110178867 Gouranga
Nayak
Rs. 10 lakhs
5 04293211072188 Abhimanyu
Behera
Rs. 10 lakhs
6 04290110179819 Rajib Lochan
Sahoo
Rs. 9.75 lakhs
7 04293211072478 Cheeranjib
Mohanty
Rs. 9.20 lakhs
8 04290110174944 Shuvranshu
Sekhar Sahu
Rs. 19 lakhs
9 04290110176696 Samir Kumar
Sahoo
Rs. 16 lakhs
10 04290110178256 Ashutosh
Mohapatra
Rs. 9.80 lakhs
11 04290110178263 Soumya
Ranjan Mallik
Rs. 8.50 lakhs
Total Rs.1,26,85,000/-
And combined with the other amounts, the
total defalcation comes to Rs.3.25 Crores.
17 20
Page of
ABLAPL Nos.8557, 8559,8572,8649,8724
and 9141 of 2026
16. The fraud perpetrated relates to UCO Bank,
Old Secretariat, Cuttack and Salepur Branch,
Cuttack, during the incumbency of accused-
Shiba Prasad Das.
17. The submission of the learned counsel for
the Petitioners that they have acted only at the
behest of the said principal accused and,
therefore, no complicity can be attached to
them cannot be accepted at its face value,
considering the role ascribed to them in
processing the loans.
18. Admittedly, the investigation in the present
case is continuing, and it involves an economic
offence. It is stated to be at a crucial stage to
unearth the larger conspiracy.
19. It is well settled by the Apex Court, that
the approach for grant of bail, and more so in
the case of pre-arrest bail, has to be different,
in a case where the allegation is of commission
of economic offence, as in the present case.
18 20
Page of
ABLAPL Nos.8557, 8559,8572,8649,8724
and 9141 of 2026
20. In fact, in the case of Serious Fraud
15
Investigation Office v. Aditya Sarda , the
Apex Court has held that, unless exceptional
circumstances are made out, pre-arrest bail in
economic offences which affect the community
at large and, in the process, the economy
should not be granted.
21. This Court finds force in the submission of
the learned counsel for the State, Mr. Panigrahi,
that the investigation is at a crucial bend and, in
fact, if the Petitioners are protected by pre-
arrest bail, it may derail the ongoing
investigation and their interrogation would
become farcical, being ensconced by an order of
pre-arrest bail.
In this context, reliance is placed on the
State
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
16
v. Anil Sharma .
22. This Court is conscious of parameter of
grant of pre-arrest bail as setout in the
15
Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Aditya Sarda, 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 764.
16
State v. Anil Sharma , (1997) 7 SCC 187.
19 20
Page of
ABLAPL Nos.8557, 8559,8572,8649,8724
and 9141 of 2026
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of
17
Investigation .
23. Considering the rival submissions in the
light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the
15
case of Aditya Sarda (supra) treating
economic offences on a different plane, this
Court is not persuaded to hold that the
Petitioners are entitled to the “exceptional
remedy” of pre-arrest bail. Hence, all the
ABLAPLs accordingly stand rejected.
24. Interim order stands vacated.
25. Accordingly, all the ABLAPLs stand disposed
of.
(V. Narasingh)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
rd
Dated the 3 September, 2026/Soumya
03.09.2026/ Uploaded
Signature Not Verified
17
Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation , 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 452.
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN SAMAL
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 03-Sep-2026 21:07:22
20 20
Page of
ABLAPL Nos.8557, 8559,8572,8649,8724
and 9141 of 2026