SANJITA MOHARANA vs STATE OF ODISHA
- Court
- Odisha High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
,
ABLAPL No.6638 of 2026
CNR No. ODHC010424132026
With
ABLAPL Nos. 13080, 13769 of 2025 and
7119,7625,7634 of 2026
(CNR Nos. ODHC010776062025,
ODHC010850172025, ODHC010435632026,
ODHC010473382026, ODHC010473402026,
respectively)
In the matter of applications under Section 482 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
…
Sanjita Moharana
(In ABLAPL No.6638 of 2026)
( CNR No. ODHC010424132026)
Trinath Nayak
(In ABLAPL No.13080 of 2025)
(CNR No. ODHC010776062025)
Hiranmaya Jena
(In ABLAPL No.13769 of 2025)
(CNR No. ODHC010850172025)
Bijaylaxmi Nayak
(In ABLAPL No.7119 of 2026)
(CNR No. ODHC010435632026)
Manosmita Mishra
(In ABLAPL No. 7625 of 2026)
(CNR No. ODHC010473382026)
Urmila Mishra
(In ABLAPL No.7634 of 2026)
(CNR No.ODHC010473402026)
…
Petitioners
-versus-
State of Odisha
Opposite Party
…
Advocate(s) appeared in this case
1 18
Page of
ABLAPL Nos. 13080, 13769 of 2025 and 6638, 7119,7625,7634 of 2026
For Petitioners - Mr. Suryakanta Dash, Advocate
Mr. Bidyalok Mohapatra, Advocate
Mr. Sougat Dash, Advocate
For Opp. Party - Mr. Sobhan Panigrahi, ASC (In all
ABLAPLs)
CORAM : MR. JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
DATE OF HEARING : 07.10.2026
DATE OF ORDER : 29.10.2026
----------------------------------------------------------------
V. Narasingh, J.
1. Since all the ABLAPLs relate to EOW P.S.
Case No. 3 of 2026, on the consent of the
parties, they are taken up together and are
disposed of by this common order.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners
and learned counsel for the State.
3. The Petitioners are seeking pre-arrest
bail in connection with C.T. Case No. 04 of
2026 pending on the file of the learned
Presiding Officer, Designated Court under the
OPID Act, Cuttack, arising out of Economic
Offence Wing P.S. Case No. 03 of 2026 for
commission of offences punishable under
2 18
Page of
ABLAPL Nos. 13080, 13769 of 2025 and 6638, 7119,7625,7634 of 2026
1 2 3 4
Sections 316(5) , 318(4) , 336(3) , 338 ,
5 6 7
340(2) , 344 , 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
8 9
Sanhita, 2023 r/w Sections 66-C and 66-D of
the Information Technology Act, 2000.
1
316. Criminal breach of trust (5) 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.
2
318. Cheating .— (4) 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 ye
3
336. Forgery (3) 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.
4
338. 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
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.
5
340. Forged document or electronic record and using it as
genuine .— (2) 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.
6
344. Falsification of accounts .—Whoever, being a clerk, officer or
servant, or employed or acting in the capacity of a clerk, officer or
servant, wilfully, 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 wilfully, and with intent to defraud, makes or abets the
making of any false entry in, or omits or alters or abets the omission or
3 18
Page of
ABLAPL Nos. 13080, 13769 of 2025 and 6638, 7119,7625,7634 of 2026
4. The allegations of the prosecution,
instituted on a written report lodged by the
Regional Manager, State Bank of India,
Regional Office, reveal that there were serious
financial irregularities in the sanctioning,
processing and disbursal in respect of 105 Gold
Loans 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 and
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.
7
61. Criminal conspiracy .— (2) Whoever is a party to a criminal
conspiracy,—
( a ) 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 Sanhita for the
punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner
as if he had abetted such offence;
( b ) 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.
8
66-C. Punishment for identity theft .— Whoever, fraudulently or
dishonestly make use of the electronic signature, password or any
other unique identification feature of any other person, 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 rupees one lakh.
9
66-D. Punishment for cheating by personation by using
computer resource
.— Whoever, by means of any communication
device or 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 18
Page of
ABLAPL Nos. 13080, 13769 of 2025 and 6638, 7119,7625,7634 of 2026
diversion and siphoning of bank funds are
under investigation.
6. It is further submitted by the learned
counsel for the State that the principal accused
is one Prashanta Kumar Mallick and the offence
was committed during his tenure as Senior
Associate-cum-Cash–in-Charge since
01.06.2022. However, the complicity of the
said principal accused cannot be adjudged in
isolation, as admittedly the fraud relates to
multiple loan accounts and manipulation of
official records and processes at different
levels. Hence, it is incumbent upon the
Investigating Agency to examine the role of
each of the employees/officials who were in
any way involved in the processing/
verification/ recommendation/ authentication,
etc., or otherwise connected with facilitating
the grant of loans in a fraudulent manner and
also the beneficiaries.
Hence, the role ascribed to each of the
Petitioners merits independent probe and such
5 18
Page of
ABLAPL Nos. 13080, 13769 of 2025 and 6638, 7119,7625,7634 of 2026
a probe would be farcical if they are insulated
by an order of pre-arrest bail.
In this context, he relies on the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
10
State v. Anil Sharma .
He also relies on the following judgments:
i. P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of
11
Enforcement
ii. Directorate of Enforcement v. P.V.
12
Prabhakar Rao
iii. Y.S. Jaganmohon Reddy vs. Central
13
Bureau of Investigation
iv. State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji
14
Porwal
v. Nimmagadda Prasad v. Central
15
Bureau of Investigation
7. During the tenure of the principal accused,
Sri Prashanta Kumar Mallick, in his capacity as Sr.
Associate-cum-Cash-in-Charge, in connivance with
others, 105 Gold Loans were processed, out of
10
State v. Anil Sharma , (1997) 7 SCC 187.
11
P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement , (2019) 9 SCC 24.
12
Directorate of Enforcement v. P.V. Prabhakar Rao , (1997) 6 SCC
647.
13
Y.S. Jaganmohon Reddy vs. CBI , (2013) 7 SCC 439.
14
State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal , (1987) 2 SCC 364.
15
Nimmagadda Prasad vs. CBI , (2013) 7 SCC 466.
6 18
Page of
ABLAPL Nos. 13080, 13769 of 2025 and 6638, 7119,7625,7634 of 2026
which 31 loans were sanctioned against the pledge
of fake gold ornaments and 74 loans were
sanctioned without any gold ornaments being
pledged.
During the investigation, it was further
found that, in several cases, the loan documents
and valuation reports of the Goldsmith were not
available and the signatures of the borrowers had
been forged.
More importantly, the principal accused, Sri
Prashanta Kumar Mallick, also misappropriated the
loan amounts by transferring the funds to his
personal accounts as well as to the accounts of
others, including some of the Petitioners.
8. So far as the Petitioner in ABLAPL No.
6638 of 2026 (Sanjita Moharana) is concerned,
she was functioning as the Chief Manager, SBI,
Balichandrapur Branch, during the tenure of the
principal accused, Prashanta Kumar Mallick, as
Senior Associate-cum-Cash-in-Charge. In her
capacity as Chief Manager, the Petitioner
processed two gold loans amounting to Rs.
7,60,000/- without ensuring minimum due
diligence or checking the physical ornaments. On
verification, it has come to light that the gold
7 18
Page of
ABLAPL Nos. 13080, 13769 of 2025 and 6638, 7119,7625,7634 of 2026
ornaments were fake and the signatures
on the
appraisal note by the processing and
sanctioning officials were not found.
8-A. It is submitted by the learned counsel
for the Petitioner-Sanjita Moharana that she
has cooperated with the ongoing investigation.
It is further submitted by the learned counsel
for the Petitioner that, the allegation being
prima facie on account of official duties
discharged at the direction of a senior, no
complicity can be attached to the Petitioner.
Even otherwise, since the allegations are
primarily based on documentary evidence, and
the Petitioner is a lady, on account of the
special provisions provided under the BNSS
qua ladies, she should be released on pre-
arrest bail.
9. So far as Petitioner- Trinath Nayak,
in ABLAPL No.13080 of 2025 , is concerned,
it is submitted by the learned counsel for the
State that the Petitioner (Trinath Nayak) was
posted as Assistant Manager (Field Manager) at
8 18
Page of
ABLAPL Nos. 13080, 13769 of 2025 and 6638, 7119,7625,7634 of 2026
SBI, Balichandrapur Branch, from 02.06.2023
to 31.07.2025.
The allegation against him is that he
had processed and recommended two gold
loans without gold ornaments and with fake
gold ornaments, in contravention of the
guidelines and without exercising due
diligence.
Per contra, the learned counsel for the
Petitioner submits that since the allegations are
based on documentary evidence and as there
is no allegation of the Petitioner not co-
operating with the investigation, his further
custodial interrogation is not warranted.
10. So far as Petitioner- Hiranmaya
Jena in ABLAPL No.13769 of 2025 is
concerned, it is submitted by the learned
counsel for the State that the Petitioner,
Hiranmaya Jena, was posted as Deputy
Manager (Service Manager) at SBI,
Balichandrapur Branch, from 28.06.2024 to
23.07.2025 and, being the joint custodian of
the pledged gold ornaments, had a statutory
9 18
Page of
ABLAPL Nos. 13080, 13769 of 2025 and 6638, 7119,7625,7634 of 2026
and departmental responsibility to ensure the
safe custody of the pledged gold, maintenance
of the gold loan registers and compliance with
the requirements relating to gold loan
operations.
10-A. It is the submission of the learned
counsel for the Petitioner-Hiranmaya Jena, that
the Petitioner merely acted at the direction of
the principal accused, so no complicity can be
attached to her and since the allegation is
mostly based on documentary evidence, he
may be protected by pre-arrest bail.
According to the learned counsel for the
State, because of the action and inaction on
the part of the Petitioner- Hiranmaya Jena, the
fraud could be committed.
11. So far as Petitioner- Bijaylaxmi
Nayak, in ABLAPL No.7119 of 2026 , is
concerned, it is submitted by the learned
counsel for the State that while she was
attached to the SBI Branch as Goldsmith, on
05.10.2024 a sum of Rs.50,000/- was
transferred from SB A/C No.383584399915,
10 18
Page of
ABLAPL Nos. 13080, 13769 of 2025 and 6638, 7119,7625,7634 of 2026
belonging to the petitioner-Bijaylaxmi Nayak,
to the HDFC A/C No.50100725108010 of the
principal accused Prashanta Kumar Mallick.
Further, on 21.10.2024, a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- and on 01.11.2024, a sum of
Rs.1,50,000/- were transferred from the
account of one Sai Prashad Mallick to the
account of the petitioner- Bijaylaxmi Nayak.
According to the learned counsel for the State
she is a key player in the fraud committed.
And, if she is protected by pre-arrest bail the
ongoing investigation would hit a road-block.
Per contra, learned counsel for the
Petitioner- Bijaylaxmi Nayak submits that the
name of the Petitioner does not find place in
the FIR and the allegations primarily relate to
Sri Prashanta Kumar Mallick, Senior Associate-
cum-Cash In-charge, who was assigned with
the appraisal, verification and sanction of the
gold loans.
It is his further contention that the
Petitioner- Bijaylaxmi Nayak, being a lady
engaged on a temporary basis, has been
11 18
Page of
ABLAPL Nos. 13080, 13769 of 2025 and 6638, 7119,7625,7634 of 2026
falsely implicated in the present case, despite
having no involvement in the alleged offences
and hence she may be enlarged on pre-arrest
bail.
12. So far as Petitioner- Manosmita
Mishra, in ABLAPL No.7625 of 2025 , is
concerned, it is submitted by the learned
counsel for the State that the
Petitioner(Manosmita Mishra), daughter-in-law
of co-accused Urmila Mishra (Petitioner in
ABLAPL No.7634 of 2026), availed four gold
loans amounting to Rs.19,60,000/-, sanctioned
against fake gold ornaments or without any
ornaments, which were credited to her Savings
Bank Account No. 36036769058. Further, out
of five gold loan accounts sanctioned in the
names of other persons for Rs.1,10,90,000/-, a
sum of Rs.27,50,690/- was transferred to the
said account, and her mobile number was used
for generating OTPs for the transactions.
Hence, she ought not to be protected by pre-
arrest bail.
12 18
Page of
ABLAPL Nos. 13080, 13769 of 2025 and 6638, 7119,7625,7634 of 2026
It is the submission of the learned
counsel for the Petitioner- Manosmita Mishra
that the name of the Petitioner does not find
place in the FIR and the petitioner has no
involvement in the alleged incident in any
manner, so no complicity can be attached to
her and it is further stated that since the
Petitioner is a lady, she may be protected by
pre-arrest bail.
13. So far as complicity of the Petitioner-
Urmila Mishra, in ABLAPL No.7634 of
2026 , is concerned, it is submitted by the
learned counsel for the State that the said
Petitioner- Urmila Mishra, mother-in-law of co-
accused, Manosmita Mishra (Petitioner in
ABLAPL No.7625 of 2025), had availed 10 Gold
Loans amounting to Rs.48,20,000/- vide
Account Nos. 43676105256, 43676179614,
43705319392, 43705390965, 43769468657,
43776305976, 43776307010, 43787782232,
44037989265 and 44052656271. It is further
alleged that the sanctioned amounts were
transferred to the Petitioner's Savings Bank
13 18
Page of
ABLAPL Nos. 13080, 13769 of 2025 and 6638, 7119,7625,7634 of 2026
Account bearing No. 31541406970 and that the
said loans were sanctioned using fake gold
ornaments or without any gold ornaments.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for
the petitioner, Urmila Mishra, that, since the
same is primarily based on documentary
evidence and considering her age (71 years)
and that the petitioner is a lady and her
cooperation with the ongoing probe, she may
be granted pre-arrest bail.
14. The common thread of submission of
the learned counsel, for the Petitioners in all
the cases, taking into account the nature of the
allegations, custodial interrogation is not
necessary since it is not the stand of the
prosecution that the Petitioners have not
cooperated with the ongoing investigation and
that there is any scope for them to abscond or
interfere with the investigation.
15. Per contra, it is submitted by the
learned counsel for the State, Mr. Panigrahi
that the offence is an economic offence
involving a public financial institution. Hence,
14 18
Page of
ABLAPL Nos. 13080, 13769 of 2025 and 6638, 7119,7625,7634 of 2026
the Petitioners cannot be protected by an order
of pre-arrest bail when further investigation is
at a crucial stage to unearth the involvement of
the other accused persons as well as money
trail.
Regarding the economic offence and its
import, he places reliance on the judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of Nimmagadda
15
Prasad (supra) , in which it was observed as
under:
“23. Unfortunately, in the last few years,
the country has been seeing an alarming
rise in white-collar crimes, which has
affected the fibre of the country's
economic structure. Incontrovertibly,
economic offences have serious
repercussions on the development of the
country as a whole. In State of Gujarat
v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal; (1987) 2
SCC 364, this court, while considering a
request of the prosecution for adducing
additional evidence, inter alia, observed
as under :
15 18
Page of
ABLAPL Nos. 13080, 13769 of 2025 and 6638, 7119,7625,7634 of 2026
‘5.… The entire community is
aggrieved if the economic offenders
who ruin the economy of the State
are not brought to book.
A murder may be committed in the
heat of moment upon passions being
aroused. An economic offence is
committed with cool calculation and
deliberate design with an eye on
personal profit regardless of the
consequence to the community. A
disregard for the interest of the
community can be manifested only
at the cost of forfeiting the trust and
faith of the community in the system
to administer justice in an even-
handed manner without fear of
criticism from the quarters which
view white-collar crimes with a
permissive eye unmindful of the
damage done to the national
economy and national interest. ”
(Emphasized)
16 18
Page of
ABLAPL Nos. 13080, 13769 of 2025 and 6638, 7119,7625,7634 of 2026
16. Considering the rival submissions in the
light of the materials which have come to the
fore regarding the prima facie complicity of the
Petitioners, this Court is persuaded to hold that
ensconcing them with an order of pre-arrest
bail would render the further investigation
otiose. Save and except the Petitioner in
ABLAPL No.7634 of 2026 (Urmila Mishra).
Considering that she is a lady and is aged
about 71 years and the role ascribed to her, in
the light of the proviso to sub Section (1) of
Section 480 of the BNSS, it is directed that on
surrendering within three weeks hence and
moving for bail, the said Petitioner shall be
released on bail by the learned Court in seisin
on such terms as deemed just and proper.
17. The ABLAPL Nos.13080, 13769 & 7625
of 2025 and ABLAPL Nos.6638 & 7119 of 2026
filed by Trinath Nayak, Hiranmaya Jena,
Manosmita Mishra and Sanjita Moharana &
Bijaylaxmi Nayak respectively stand rejected.
However, in the event the above
mentioned Petitioners surrender and seek bail,
17 18
Page of
ABLAPL Nos. 13080, 13769 of 2025 and 6638, 7119,7625,7634 of 2026
their application shall be considered
independently without being influenced by any
of the observations made hereinabove, which
were in connection with the prayer for pre-
arrest bail.
18. Accordingly, the ABLAPLs stand
disposed of.
The interim orders passed earlier stand
vacated.
(V. Narasingh)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
th
Dated the 29 October, 2026/Soumya
29.10.2026/ Uploaded
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN SAMAL
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 29-Oct-2026 19:59:46
18 18
Page of
ABLAPL Nos. 13080, 13769 of 2025 and 6638, 7119,7625,7634 of 2026