AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G. Satapathy, J.
Since these two bail applications arise out of one and same case record, the same are heard together and disposed of by this common order with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
These are the bail applications U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with Belpahar PS Case No.32 of 2026 corresponding to CT Case No.189 of 2026 pending in the file of learned JMFC-I (Cog. Taking), Jharsuguda, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.112(2)/ 317(2)/ 317(4)/ 317(5)/ 318(4)/ 61(2) of BNS r/w Section 66(C) of IT Act.
The allegation against the Petitioner in gist is that the Petitioner Tanoj Pradhan and others have consciously allowed their bank accounts to be used for receiving, withdrawing, layering, transferring and converting proceeds of cyber fraud by handing over their account credentials to Petitioner Himanshu Srivastav who has been allegedly operating such mule accounts to commit online financial fraud. It is, accordingly, stated that the current account of Tanoj Pradhan as the proprietor of M/s. Healthy Foods Enterprises has total credit of Rs.10,23,053/- and debit of Rs. 9,73,023/- and such account is linked with five NCRP complaints. It is also stated that the Petitioner Himanshu Srivastav has used the account credentials, such as ATM, Debit Cards, account link SIM cards standing in the name of co-accused Bhima Munda, Tanoj Pradhan, Kedar Pradhan, Paramananda Das and Stifan Bastraya and there has been aggregate credit of approximately Rs. 5,25,08,691. 54/- to the six accounts of the aforesaid persons and aggregate debit/transfer of approximately Rs. 5,01,73,652.73/- from such accounts.
In the course of hearing, Ms. Agnisikha Ray, learned counsel for the petitioner Tanoj Pradhan submits that the Petitioner is an innocent mule account holder and he has no role in the online financial fraud, but he stands on similar footing with co-accused Stifan Bastraya and Paramananda Das released on bail and thereby, the Petitioner may kindly be granted bail.
On the other hand, Mr. Sk. Zafarulla, learned counsel for the petitioner- Himanshu Srivastav submits that the Petitioner is also equally innocent person and he has no role in financial fraud, rather at best, he is one of the agents alleged for receiving some commission on investment amount and thereby, the petitioner may kindly be granted bail.
On the other contrary, Mr. M.R. Patra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor by producing the written instruction received from IIC submits that the Petitioner Himanshu Srivastav is the principal accused-cum-operator of the mule account and he being in possession of the account credentials of co-accused persons, has already received ill-gotten money of Rs. 5.25 Crores in the accounts standing in the name of co-accused and thereby, he is not entitled to be released on bail.
After having considered the rivals submissions upon perusal of record, the main allegation appears against the Petitioner Himanshu Srivastav for operating the mule accounts standing in the name of co-accused Bhima Munda, Tanoj Pradhan, Kedar Pradhan, Paramananda Das and Stifan Bastraya and for receiving Rs. 5,25,08,691.54/- in the bank accounts standing in the name of the above co-accused persons with immediate debit and transfer of Rs. 5,01,73,652.73/-. On the contrary, there appears allegation against the Petitioner Tanoj Pradhan for handing over his accounts to the Petitioner Himanshu Srivastav in lieu of some paltry commission and accordingly, the current account standing in the name of M/s. Healthy Foods Enterprises has been credited with Rs. 10,23,053/- followed by debit of Rs. 9,73,023/- immediately. Further, the petitioner Tanoj Pradhan stands on similar footing with that of co-accused Kedar Pradhan, Paramananda Das and Stifan Bastraya who have already been granted bail by this Court in BLAPL Nos. 4284 of 2026, 4497 of 2026 & 4676 of 2026, but the main allegation is directed against the Petitioner Himanshu Srivastav for operating the accounts standing in the name of the aforesaid persons and for transacting more than Rs. 5 Crores in such accounts.
In the aforesaid premises and on consideration of the materials placed on record together with the main allegation being directed against the Petitioner Himanshu Srivastav, this Court while not being inclined to grant bail to the Petitioner Himanshu Srivastav, considers it proper to grant bail to the Petitioner Tanoj Pradhan.
Hence, the bail application of the Petitioner Himanshu Srivastav in BLAPL No. 6577 of 2026 stands rejected, whereas the bail application of the petitioner namely Tanoj Pradhan in BLAPL No.6485 of 2026 stands allowed and consequently, the Petitioner Tanoj Pradhan is allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one solvent surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin of the case on such terms and conditions except cash surety as deem fit and proper by it with following condition:-
the petitioner in the course of trial shall attend the trial Court on each date of posting without fail unless his attendance is dispensed with. In case the Petitioner fails without sufficient cause to appear in the Court in accordance with the terms of the bail, the learned trial Court may proceed against the Petitioner for offence U/S.269 of BNS, 2023 in accordance with law.
Accordingly, these BLAPLs stand disposed of. A soft copy of this order be immediately communicated to the concerned Court, who shall afterwards communicate the same to the concerned Jail through e-mail for reference.