DEEPAK KINDO vs STATE OF ODISHA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

BLAPL NO.12612 of 2025

(In the matter of application under Section 483 of the
BNSS ).

Deepak Kindo Petitioner
…
-versus-

State of Odisha Opposite Party
…


Mr. Y. Das, Sr. Advocate along
For Petitioner :
with Mr. N.C. Mohanty, Advocate

Mr. A.K. Nayak, Advocate (OPID)
For Opposite Party :
Mr. S.C. Pradhan, Addl. PP


CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY



DATE OF HEARING : 05.03.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT :17.03.2026


G. Satapathy, J.

1. This is an application U/S.483 of BNSS by the
petitioner for grant of bail in connection with EOW-CID,
CB PS Case No.17 of 2021 corresponding to CT Case
No.35 of 2023 for commission of offences punishable
under Sections 406/420/467/468/471/120-B of the IPC
pending in the file of learned PO Designated Court under
OPID Act, Cuttack.
2. The allegation against the petitioner in precise is
that the petitioner was the Managing Director of
Page 1 of 20

BLAPL No.12612 of 2025

Sambandh Finserve Private Limited (hereinafter referred
to as “SFPL”), a non-banking financial company having its
corporate office at civil township, Rourkela and it had the
permission of R.B.I. to carryout business of Non-Banking
Financial Services (NBFC) & Micro Finance Institutions
(MFI) operation and the petitioner being the Managing
Director of SFPL approached to another NBFC registered
with RBI namely, Annapurna Financial Private Limited
(hereinafter referred to as, “AFPL”) for financial support
to carryout financial activities effectively by giving loans
to different individual entities and Joint Liabilities Groups
and agreeing with the proposal, AFPL, accordingly,
sanctioned two term loans amounting to Rs.3crores and
Rs.2crores, total Rs.5crores with interest @ 15.50% per
annum with further condition of repayment in 12 equal
monthly installments starting from two months after
disbursement of the loan amount in favour of SFPL on
execution of two agreements by SFPL(borrower) and
th
AFPL(lender) on 28 September, 2020 at Bhubaneswar
and accordingly, Rs.5 crores was credited to the account
of SFPL, but subsequently AFPL coming to know about
Page 2 of 20
BLAPL No.12612 of 2025

the fiscal fraud committed by SFPL, approached the
petitioner to repay back the loan, to which the petitioner
only repaid Rs.50 lakhs with assurance to pay back the
balance loan amount and thereafter, the petitioner did
not repay the rest of the amount even after one year. It
is also alleged that SFPL had not utilized the loan amount
for lending loan to women joint liability groups and
managed to embezzle the entire loan amount with
dishonest intention and deceived AFPL in not paying the
loan.
On this issue, the head of Inorganic business of
AFPL namely, Mr.Sabyasachi Rout lodged an FIR before
the S.P., E.O.W., CID, C.B., Orissa, Bhubaneswar against
the petitioner for deceitfully cheating AFPL by stating that
prior to sanction of loan, SFPL had submitted one bank
st th
statement from 1 July, 2020 to 28 September, 2020
th
showing closing balance at Rs.17,51,33,609/- as on 25
September, 2020 by manipulating document instead of
providing the actual correct balance of Rs.15,28,829/- as
on that day and thereby, such bank statement of SFPL
Page 3 of 20
BLAPL No.12612 of 2025

was found to be fake and fabricated to avail the loan by
producing forged documents deliberately. On receipt of
the F.I.R., EOW, Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No. 17 dated
31.12.2021 was registered for offences U/Ss.
406/420/467/468/471/120-B of IPC and the matter was
investigated into by DSP, Sasmita Sahoo. In the course of
investigation, similar complaints were received from other
lenders like DCB Bank, SIDBI, BOPA PTE Pvt. Ltd. and
Diya Vikash Capital Pvt. Ltd. and the total
misappropriated amount of Rs.109Cores was allegedly
found against the petitioner, SFPL and others.
Accordingly, the petitioner was arrested and forwarded to
the Court and the investigation accordingly resulted in
submission of charge sheet against the petitioner and
others for offences U/Ss. 406/420/467/468/471/120-B of
IPC and right now the petitioner and others are facing
trial in this case.
3. In Course of hearing of bail application, Mr.
Yasobant Das, learned Senior Counsel, who is being
assisted by Mr. Nirmal Chandra Mohanty, learned counsel
Page 4 of 20
BLAPL No.12612 of 2025

appearing for the Petitioner in support of the contention
for grant of bail to the Petitioner has mainly emphasized
the long custody of the Petitioner for near about four
years in addition to other grounds of submission of
charge-sheet, Investigating Agency relying upon the
report of E & Y, which is not a audit report, snail pace of
trial and discharge of the Petitioner in Crime No. 68 of
2022, Crime Branch, EOW, Ernakulam (Kerla).
3.1. On the other hand, Mr. Anil Kumar Nayak,
learned counsel for OPID, however, has strongly opposed
the bail application of the Petitioner by contending inter
alia that the Petitioner has not only cheated the investors
in Odisha, but also he has committed similar offences
beyond the State of Odisha and the apprehension of the
petitioner near Odisha-Chhattisgarh border while trying to
flee away to Visakhapatnam and the same being after
issuance of lookout circular itself indicate about his
intention to evade police arrest, so also to avoid the
investigation and thereby, the Petitioner is not entitled to
Page 5 of 20
BLAPL No.12612 of 2025

bail. Accordingly, Mr. Nayak has prayed to reject the bail
application.
3.2. In more or less similar fashion, Mr. S.C.
Pradhan, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor by inviting
attention of this Court to the accusations against the
Petitioner and his involvement in seven other criminal
cases in different States of the country, has prayed to
reject the bail application of the Petitioner. In support of
his contention, the State counsel has invited attention of
the Court to the written instruction of the IO in which the
antecedents of the Petitioner have been given in a tabular
form.
4. After having consideration of rival submissions
upon perusal of the record, it is not unknown to anyone
that the Apex Court in a plethora of decisions has laid
down the parameters for considering bail application and
in one of such decisions in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar Vrs.
Ashis Chatterjee and another; (2010) 14 SCC 496,
the Apex Court after referring to several precedents has
delineated the following factors for consideration of bail
application, which reads thus: -
Page 6 of 20
BLAPL No.12612 of 2025

“9. …. However, it is equally incumbent upon the
High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously,
cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic
principles laid down in plethora of decisions of this
Court on the point. It is well settled that, among
other circumstances, the factors to be borne in
mind while considering an application for bail are:
(i) whether there is any prima facie or
reasonable ground to believe that the accused
had committed the offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of
conviction;
(iv)danger of the accused absconding or
fleeing, if released on bail;
(v)character, behavior, means, position and
standing of the accused;
(vi) likelihood of the offence being
repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses
being influenced; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being
thwarted by grant of bail.”

It is also not in dispute that while considering an
application for bail, this Court has to consider inter alia
the following at paragraph: -
(i) the nature of accusation and the severity of the
punishment in the case of conviction and the
nature of materials relied upon by the prosecution;
(ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the
witnesses or apprehension of threat to the
complainant or the witnesses;
(iii)reasonable possibility of securing the presence
of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood
of his abscondence;
Page 7 of 20
BLAPL No.12612 of 2025

(iv) character behavior and standing of the
accused and the circumstances which are peculiar
to the accused;
(v) larger interest of the public or the State and
similar other considerations.

5. A harmonious reading of the factors and
consideration for grant or refusal of bail as stated above
would persuade this Court to consider the character,
behavior and standing of the accused and the
circumstance which are peculiar to the accused and
likelihood of the offence being repeated as well as larger
interest of the public or the State as some of the factors
amongst others while considering the bail to the
applicant. Besides, the criminal antecedent of the accused
is also a relevant factor. In this regard this Court is
fortified with the decision of the Apex Court in State of
Orissa Vrs. Mahimananda Mishra; AIR 2019 SC 302,
wherein the Apex Court at Paragraph-16 has held that
the time of considering an application for bail, the Court
must take into account certain factors such as: -
(i) existence of a prima facie case against the
accused;

(ii) the gravity of the allegations;

(iii) position and status of the accused;
Page 8 of 20
BLAPL No.12612 of 2025

(iv) the likelihood of accused fleeing from
justice and repeating the offence;

(v) the possibility of tampering with witnesses
and obstructing the Court and

(vi) criminal antecedent of the accused.

6. Similarly, in Ash Mohammad Vrs. Shiv Raj
Singh @ Lalla Babu and another; (2012) 9 SCC 446,
the Apex has been pleased to hold at paragraph-30 as
under: -
“ 30 . We may usefully state that when the
citizens are scared to lead a peaceful life
and this kind of offences usher in an
impediment in establishment of orderly
society, the duty of the court becomes
more pronounced and the burden is heavy.
There should have been proper
analysis of the criminal antecedents .
Needless to say, imposition of conditions is
subsequent to the order admitting an
accused to bail. The question should be
posed whether the accused deserves to be
enlarged on bail or not and only thereafter
issue of imposing conditions would arise.
We do not deny for a moment that
period of custody is a relevant factor
but simultaneously the totality of
circumstances and the criminal
antecedents are also to be weighed.
They are to be weighed in the scale of
collective cry and desire . The societal
concern has to be kept in view in
juxtaposition of individual liberty. Regard
being had to the said parameter we are
inclined to think that the social concern in
the case at hand deserves to be given
Page 9 of 20
BLAPL No.12612 of 2025

priority over lifting the restriction of liberty
of the accused.
6.1. In Azwar Vrs. Waseen; 2024 10 SCC 768 ,
the Apex Court in Paragraph 26 has held as under: -
26 . while considering as to whether, bail
“
ought to be granted in a matter involving a
serious criminal offence, the Court must
consider relevant factors like the nature of
accusations made against the accused, the
manner in which crime to have been
committed, the gravity of the offence, the
role attributed to the accused, the
criminal antecedents of the accused ,
the probability of tempering of the
witnesses and repeating the offence, if the
accused are released on bail, the likelihood
of the accused being unavailable in the
event bail is granted, the possibility of
obstructing the proceedings and evading
the Court of justice and the overall
desirability of releasing the accused on
bail.”
7. On a plain consideration of above decisions
makes it very clear that criminal antecedent is a
important factor while considering the bail application of
the accused, but the Petitioner herein although was
shown to be involved in seven criminal cases, but he has
not disclosed a single criminal antecedent in his bail
application, which may be considered as material
suppression. It is also relevant to reiterate that it is only
Page 10 of 20
BLAPL No.12612 of 2025

at the time of argument the learned Senior Counsel for
the Petitioner has produced the copy of order by which
the petitioner was discharged in Crime No.68 of 2022,
but the learned State Counsel has furnished the written
instruction received from the IO in which the criminal
antecedents of the Petitioner have been reflected in a
tabular form. For clarity the information regarding the
criminal antecedents of the Petitioner as given in the
tabular form by the learned Public Prosecutor is extracted
as under: -
SL.
Complainant Investigating
Agency & Case
No.
Charging Sections
under different
laws and amount involved
No.
1. Fincare
Small Finance Bank
Ltd.
Before Bellandur
Police Station, Bengaluru
lodged as Crime No.262
of 2020
Sections 406,419,420 r/w.
Sec. 149 of IPC, 1860
2. Viviriti Capital Pvt. Ltd. Before EOW-II, Chennai police
lodged as Crime No. 01 of 2021
Sections 420 r/w 120(B) of
IPC, 1860 and Section 3 of
Tamilnadu Protection
Depositors (Financial
Establishments) Act, 1997
3. Northern Arc
Capital Ltd.
Central Crime Branch, Chennai Sections 406, 419, 420
r/w 149 of IPC, 1860
4. Nabsamruddhi
Finance Ltd.
Central Crime police station,
Hyderabad lodged FIR No.
71 of 2021
Sections 406, 419 and 420
of IPC, 1860
5. Samunnati Chennai CCB CR No.
101/2021
420/415/463/403 and 120(B) of
IPC u/s
Sections 420 r/w 120(B)
of IPC
6. M/S. Muthoot Capital
Services Pvt. Ltd.,
Kochi
EoW, Kerala Crime 68/CBCU-II/EKM/
22U/S 403,406,417,418,420,
422 of IPC (Ernakulam
Central PS cr.1743/22).
Page 11 of 20
BLAPL No.12612 of 2025

The amount defalcated
is Rs. 10 Crores.
7. SIDBI AND OTHERS CBI RC 08(A) /2023 BBS
RCO152023A0008) ON
30-9-2023
U/S. 13(20 R/W 13(1)
(D) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 and
120(B)/ 420,409,468 and 471
of IPC
141.88 Crores.
8. On coming back to the materials placed on
record, it appears that the Informant has lodged an FIR
against the Petitioner for availing loan of Rs.5 Crores as a
MD of “SFPL” by showing forged bank statement of
account of the company with inflated bank balance as
against actual balance, but in the course of investigation,
it is allegedly found by the investigating officer about
Petitioner to have misappropriated a sum of Rs. 109
Crores by cheating the lenders and investors and
misutilizing their funds by committing forgery. It is,
however, argued by learned Sr. Counsel that the FIR
allegation discloses inter-corporate dispute between two
companies for an amount of Rs.4.5 Crores since the
Petitioner has already paid an amount of Rs.50 Lakhs and
thereby, such fact would only give rise to mere breach of
contract, but since the allegation against the Petitioner is
not only for cheating the Informant for a sum of Rs. 4.5
Crores, but also the investigation has unearthed
Page 12 of 20
BLAPL No.12612 of 2025

allegations against the Petitioner for misappropriation to
the tune of Rs. 109 Crores, and it would be too early to
say that the allegation only reveals about mere breach of
contractual obligation. It is also found in the course of
investigation that the “SFPL” has allegedly produced
manipulated bank statement at the behest of the
Petitioner by showing an inflated bank balance to the
tune of Rs.17,51,33,609 as against the actual balance of
Rs. 15,28,829 to avail the loan as ascertained by the IO
and there is prima facie allegation appearing against the
Petitioner for cheating & misappropriating, which is of
course subject to proof, which is evident from paragraph-
16.3 of the charge-sheet, which reads as under: -
16.3 . xxx xxx xxx during the investigation
“
as per the complaints received from the
investors/lenders, the total amount
misappropriated by Deepak Kindo, its
company Sambandh Finserve Private
Limited, Amrita Kumari and Others amount

to Rs.109 Crores.”
9. This Court has no hesitation to say that a
person accused of a non-bailable offence may also be
entitled to bail, if such person otherwise makes out a
case for grant of bail, even when there exists a prima
Page 13 of 20
BLAPL No.12612 of 2025

facie case against such person; provided there is a need
to release such person on bail where facts demand so. In
this case, the submission as advanced on behalf of the
State reveals that the petitioner was arrested after
issuance of look out circular and that too, he was
apprehended from Odisha-Chhatisgarh border while
trying to flee away to Visakhapatnam. It is of course true
that such submission must further stand to the legal
scrutiny of the Court, however, such assertion was not
denied for the petitioner. Besides, it is undisputed that
the petitioner was arrested only on 16.03.2022, whereas
his wife was arrested on 30.01.2022 and this fact gives
some insight to say that the petitioner had not appeared
voluntarily before the Investigating Agency. Be that as it
may, the materials on record do not disclose about the
petitioner cooperating the investigation by appearing
before the IO before his arrest.
10. This Court strongly believes the personal liberty
of a person to be precious and sacrosanct, but it is not
absolute in every situation. The individual liberty is
Page 14 of 20
BLAPL No.12612 of 2025

restricted by larger social interest and its deprivation
must have due sanction of law as held by the Apex Court
in paragraph-17 of the decision in Ash Mohammad
(supra) which reads as under: -
“17. We are absolutely conscious that
liberty of a person should not be lightly
dealt with, for deprivation of liberty of a
person has immense impact on the mind of
a person. Incarceration creates a concavity
in the personality of an individual.
Sometimes it causes a sense of vacuum.
Needless to emphasize, the sacrosanctity of
liberty is paramount in a civilized society.
However, in a democratic body polity which
is wedded to the rule of law an individual is
expected to grow within the social
restrictions sanctioned by law. The
individual liberty is restricted by larger
social interest and its deprivation must
have due sanction of law. In an orderly
society an individual is expected to live with
dignity having respect for law and also
giving due respect to others' rights. It is a
well- accepted principle that the concept of
liberty is not in the realm of absolutism but
is a restricted one. The cry of the collective
for justice, its desire for peace and
harmony and its necessity for security
cannot be allowed to be trivialized. The life
of an individual living in a society governed
by the rule of law has to be regulated and
such regulations which are the source in
law subserve the social balance and
function as a significant instrument for
protection of human rights and security of
the collective. It is because fundamentally
Page 15 of 20
BLAPL No.12612 of 2025

laws are made for their obedience so that
every member of the society lives
peacefully in a society to achieve his
individual as well as social interest. That is
why Edmond Burke while discussing about
liberty opined, “it is regulated freedom”.

11. The bail application of the petitioner in fact does
not contain any statement of his criminal antecedent, but
in Kaushal Singh Vrs. State of Rajasthan; 2025 INSC
871 , the Apex has held the following in paragraphs-22
and 23: -

“22. Before parting, we would like to state
that, accounting for the criminal
antecedents of the accused while
considering the bail applications has been
the subject matter of concern for Courts
across the country. The rules and orders of
the Punjab and Haryana High Court, to be
specific, Rule 5 of Chapter 1-A(b) Volume-V
specifically provide as below:
5. Bail applications . - In every
“
application for bail presented to the
High Court the petitioner shall state
whether similar application has or has
not been made to the Supreme Court,
and if made shall state the result
thereof. The petitioner/applicant shall
also mention whether he/she is/was
involved in any other criminal case or
not. If yes, particulars and decisions
thereof. An application which does not
contain this information shall be placed
before the bench with the necessary
information.”
Page 16 of 20
BLAPL No.12612 of 2025

23. We feel that every High Court in the
country should consider incorporating a
similar provision in the respective High
Court Rules and/or Criminal Side Rules as it
would impose an obligation on the accused
to make disclosures regarding
his/her involvement in any other criminal
case(s) previously registered.”
12. On coming back to the plea of long detention of
the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner is in custody
for just about four years, but the custody of a person
may not be the sole deciding factor in a bail application,
especially when his conduct is not aboveboard and the
allegation is serious. In this case, it is claimed by the
prosecution that the petitioner had tried to evade his
arrest and wanted to flee away and his apprehension was
after issuance of look out circular which was not denied
for the petitioner. In the context of long custody of the
petitioner, this Court considers it apt to refer to the
decision in State of Bihar and another Vrs. Amit
Kumar @ Bachcha Rai; (2017) 13 SCC 751, wherein it
has been held in paragraph-8 as under: -
8. Xxx xxx xxx When the seriousness of
“
the offence is such, the mere fact that he
was in jail for however long time
should not be the concern of the
Page 17 of 20
BLAPL No.12612 of 2025

courts . We are not able to appreciate such
a casual approach while granting bail in a
case which has the effect of undermining
the trust of people in the integrity of the

education system in the State of Bihar.”
13. In addition, the petitioner has relied upon the
decision in the case of Arvind Dham vs. Directorate of
Enforcement; (2026) SCC OnLine SC 30, but the
accused therein (appellant) had joined with the
investigation even prior to his arrest on 19.06.2024 and
02.07.2024 as well as on 09.07.2024 and he has
cooperated with the investigation and out of 28
individuals, only the accused (appellant) has been
arrested and the maximum sentence which can be
imposed on the appellant in that case is for seven years,
but in the present case, the trial has already commenced
and the petitioner was not found to have cooperated the
investigation and out of the offences alleged against the
petitioner, the offence U/S.467 of IPC is punishable up to
imprisonment for life. Besides, the petitioner has also
relied upon the decision in Satender Kumar Antil vs.
CBI & Another; (2026) SCC OnLine SC 162 , but the
issue therein was with regard to the issuance of notice
Page 18 of 20
BLAPL No.12612 of 2025

U/S.35(3) of BNSS qua an offence punishable with
imprisonment up to seven years. From the materials on
record, it is not only the solitary criminal case against the
petitioner, but also he has got other criminal antecedents
in different States in the country and as per the
information provided, the allegation against the petitioner
runs into Rs.141.88Crores in CBI RC 08 (A) 2023BBS.
14. In view of the discussions made hereinabove
and taking into consideration the enormity of allegation
leveled against the petitioner in committing fraud
involving more than Rs.100Crores and his alleged
involvement in other six criminal cases in different States
of the country including the allegation of committing
fraud of Rs.141.88 Crores in another case and taking into
account the mode and manner of allegedly cheating the
investors and lenders and keeping in view the conduct of
the petitioner necessitating the Investigating Agency to
issue look out circular and the trial having already
commenced with examination of some witnesses, but the
material witnesses being yet to be examined, this Court
Page 19 of 20
BLAPL No.12612 of 2025

does not consider it proper to grant bail to the petitioner
at this stage.
Hence, the bail application of the petitioner
stands rejected. Looking at the custody period of the
petitioner, the learned trial Court is requested to examine
all the material witnesses within six months hence. It is
open to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after
examination of material witnesses.
15. Accordingly, the bail application stands disposed
of. A soft copy of this order be immediately transmitted
to the concerned Court.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge










Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
th
Dated the 17 day of March, 2026/S.Sasmal
Signature Not Verified
Page 20 of 20
BLAPL No.12612 of 2025

Digitally Signed
Signed by: SUBHASMITA SASMAL
Designation: Jr. Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 17-Mar-2026 15:14:12