01Facts
The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case alleging offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
pp. 1–3 · ¶ 3–6The informant alleged that the petitioner received ₹77 lakh to facilitate her daughter’s admission to a medical college; the petitioner’s counsel acknowledged an alleged payment of ₹27 lakh, while the informant’s counsel stated that ₹7 lakh had been paid to the college and that the petitioner had offered to refund ₹19.85 lakh.
pp. 1–3 · ¶ 3–6The petitioner had been in custody since 8 August 2026, the investigation was complete, and a charge-sheet had been filed.
pp. 1–3 · ¶ 3–6The petitioner also had one criminal antecedent, stated to be unrelated to the present allegation.
pp. 1–3 · ¶ 3–602Issues
i.1. Whether the petitioner should be released on bail pending determination of his application for regular bail.
pp. 1–3 · ¶ 3–7ii.2. Whether interim bail should be granted subject to conditions, having regard to the circumstances placed before the Court, including the petitioner’s custody, completion of investigation, and stated willingness to refund part of the amount.
pp. 2–4 · ¶ 4–903Law Applied
Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 provides the relevant statutory basis for the petitioner’s bail application.
p. 1, 3 · ¶ 3, 7–8Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 were the alleged offences in the underlying case.
p. 1, 3 · ¶ 3, 7–8The order cites no precedent and does not articulate a broader test for granting bail; it records an interim-bail decision based on the circumstances of the case and permits the court in seisin to impose further appropriate conditions.
p. 1, 3 · ¶ 3, 7–8Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 406Section 420
04Reasoning
The Court considered the submissions that the petitioner had been in custody since 8 August 2026 and that the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet filed.
pp. 2–3 · ¶ 4–7It also noted the parties’ competing accounts concerning the alleged payments, the undisputed payment of ₹7 lakh to the medical college, and the petitioner’s affidavit expressing willingness to refund ₹19.85 lakh.
pp. 2–3 · ¶ 4–7On that record, the Court ordered interim bail for six weeks; it did not determine the truth of the allegations or grant final regular bail.
pp. 2–3 · ¶ 4–705Holding
The Court directed that the petitioner be released on interim bail for six weeks upon furnishing a bond of ₹50,000 with two local solvent sureties for the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court in seisin.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 7–10That court may impose additional conditions, and breach of any condition may entail cancellation of bail.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 7–10The petitioner was directed to surrender before the concerned court and produce a surrender certificate on or before the next listing.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 7–10The matter was listed for the week commencing 4 January 2027.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 7–10Although the petitioner had expressed willingness to refund ₹19.85 lakh within four weeks of release, the operative order did not expressly make repayment a condition of bail.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 7–10Original Court PDF
ROHIT MAHAPATRAvsSTATE OF ODISHA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
