Disposed¶11

Himansu Sekhar Swain v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC3 Dec 2025ABLAPL/2777/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pre-arrest bail refused; anticipatory bail application disposed; economic offence; bank Relationship Manager; fraud; cheating and forgery; Sections 294/420/468/471/506 IPC; G.R. Case No.233 of 2025; Nayagarh Town P.S. Case No.84 of 2025; S.D.J.M. Nayagarh; SDPO enquiry report 02.12.2025; cheque encashment at accused's behest; signature/handwriting mismatch; Rs.30,00,000 deposit; Rs.50,00,000 outstanding; Rs.10,00,000 taken back by cheques; surrender and apply for regular bail; Justice V. Narasingh; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; 11.12.2025.

What did the court decide?

Considering that the Petitioner was an employee of a Bank and the offence alleged is an economic offence, this Court held that protecting the Petitioner by pre-arrest bail would render the ongoing investigation farcical. ¶8

Himansu Sekhar Swain Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner, a former bank Relationship Manager accused of deceiving the informant in a Rs.30-lakh deposit/CC-loan-conversion affair punishable under Sections 294/420/468/471/506 IPC, should be granted pre-arrest bail in G.R. Case No.233 of 2025 (Nayagarh Town P.S. Case No.84 of 2025).

¶2

Court's answer

¶8

Ratio / Principle

Taking into account the nature of allegations, this Court was not inclined to entertain the application for pre-arrest bail.

¶9

Key takeaways

In the event the Petitioner surrenders before the learned Court in seisin and moves an application for release on bail, the same shall be considered on its own merit.ratio¶9
The observations made herein are only for consideration of the pre-arrest bail prayer and ought not to be construed as this Court expressing any view on the Petitioner's complicity, which must be established independently.obiter¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail (ABLAPL No. 2777 of 2025) sought by Himansu Sekhar Swain, a bank Relationship Manager, in G.R. Case No.233 of 2025 (Nayagarh Town P.S. Case No.84 of 2025), S.D.J.M. Nayagarh, for offences under Sections 294/420/468/471/506 IPC, on allegations that he deceived the informant who deposited Rs.30,00,00/- to convert a CC Loan to EMI, which sum was never credited, the fraud surfacing when the recovery team claimed about Rs.50,00,000/- outstanding. On an SDPO, Nayagarh enquiry report dated 02.12.2025 showing encashment of cheques at the Petitioner's behest and a mismatch between the account holder's handwriting and the cheque signatures, and treating the matter as an economic offence involving a bank employee, Justice V. Narasingh (High Court of Orissa, order dated 11.12.2025) held that pre-arrest bail would render the investigation farcical, declined to entertain the application, and disposed of the ABLAPL, leaving the Petitioner free to surrender and seek regular bail on merits, without expressing any view on complicity.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

ABLAPL No. 2777 of 2025

¶3

Himansu Sekhar Swain

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. D.P. Nanda, Sr. Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Orissa

¶8

Opposite Party

¶9

Mr. C.R. Swain, AGA Mr. A. Tripathy, Advocate (Informant)

¶10

CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH ORDER

¶11

11.12.2025

¶12

Order No.

¶13

16. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsels for the State as well as informant.

¶14

The Petitioner is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with G.R. Case No.233 of 2025 pending on the file of learned S.D.J.M., Nayagarh, arising out of Nayagarh Town P.S. Case No.84 of 2025 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 294/ 420/ 468/ 471/ 506 of IPC.

¶15

The allegation against the present Petitioner in the case at hand that he misusing his position as a Relationship Manager deceived the informant and, in the process, though the complainant-informant has deposited Rs.30,000,00/- with the manager of the bank to get the CC Loan converted to EMI after 01.09.2021

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

because of the alleged fraud committed by the Petitioner in connivance with the officials, the same was never credited to his account. The alleged fraud played by the Petitioner came to the fore when the bank recovery team approached the informant for payment of about Rs.50,00,000/- as outstanding.

¶18

During the course of submission, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Nanda on instruction submitted that there are materials on record to indicate that the Petitioner himself had sought rephasing and had in fact taken back an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- by way of cheques.

¶19

Considering the rival submissions regarding the issuance of letters of the bank and the encashment of cheques on which much reliance was placed by the Petitioner, this Court had called upon the SDPO, Nayagarh, to make an enquiry.

¶20

Such enquiry report submitted to the learned counsel for the State dated 02.12.2025 is taken on record.

¶21

During the course of enquiry, it has come to the fore that the encashment was at the behest and an instruction of the Petitioner and it is also mentioned that on a bare perusal the handwriting of the account holdercomplainant, the same does not match with the signatures on the cheques, allegedly enchased by the informant.

¶22

Referring to such instruction learned counsel for

¶23

the State opposes the prayer for pre-arrest bail.

¶24

Page 2 of 4

¶25

Learned counsel for the informant echoes such submission.

¶26

Per contra, it is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Nanda that even if the allegations are levelled are accepted at its face value since the Petitioner had left the branch since 2023 and the allegations are more or less based on documentary evidence that should weigh with this Court in considering his application for pre-arrest bail.

¶27

On considering the rival submissions and on perspicuous analysis of the materials on record, taking into account that the Petitioner was an employee of a Bank, the nature of allegations and offence alleged being an economic offence, this Court is persuaded to hold that protecting the Petitioner by pre-arrest bail would render the ongoing investigation farcical. 9. Taking into account the nature of allegations, this Court is not inclined to entertain the application for prearrest bail. However, in the event the Petitioner surrenders before the learned Court in seisin in the aforesaid case and moves an application for his release on bail, the same shall be considered on its own merit. 10. It is needless to state that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of consideration of the prayer of the Petitioner for pre-arrest bail and it ought not to be construed as this Court expressing any view regarding his complicity which has to be established in an independent manner.

¶28

Page 3 of 4

¶29

The ABLAPL is accordingly disposed of. U.C.C in course of the day.

(V. NARASINGH)

Judge

Soumya

Signature Not Verified

¶34

Digitally Signed Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN SAMAL Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 11-Dec-2025 16:52:37

¶35

Page 4 of 4

Himansu Sekhar Swain v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Himansu Sekhar Swain v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saroj Kumar Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Sunil Kumar Chopadi @ Sunil Chopadi Vs State of Odisha

Manoj Kumar Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Himansu Sekhar Swain Vs State of Odisha

Dillip Das Vs State of Odisha

K.Sobhabati Vs State of Odisha