Dismissed

Laxmipriya Parida v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC28 Nov 2025ABLAPL/6223/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge of the High Court of Orissa refused an application for pre-arrest bail under Sections 3(5) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, citing the serious societal impact of economic fraud and reliance on a Supreme Court precedent, though allowing surrender for future consideration.

What did the court decide?

The petition for pre-arrest bail was dismissed, though the Court directed that bail application may be considered on merits if the Petitioner surrenders to the trial court.

Laxmipriya Parida Vs State of Odisha — Bail and Remand | Orissa HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

ABLAPL No.6223 of 2025

¶3

Laxmipriya Parida

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

Mr. R. Behera, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha

¶8

Opposite Party

¶9

Mr. C.R. Swain, AGA Ms. D. Dhal, Advocate (Informant)

¶10

CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH ORDER

¶11

28.11.2025

¶12

Order No.

¶13

03. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Informant.

¶14

The Petitioner is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with G.R Case No.272 of 2025 pending in the Court of learned C.J.M., Malkangiri, arising out of Malkangiri P.S. Case No.173 of 2025 for commission of offence punishable under Sections 3(5)/318(4) of BNS.

¶15

The allegation against the present Petitioner is that she along with her husband, who are the residence of Dhenkanal district, visited the Malkangiri district and lured the ladies to form a group and

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

invest in the company called “DM Enterprises” assuring them of higher returns.

¶18

It is submitted by the learned counsel that the co-accused Biswanath Sarangia is the in-charge of the affairs of the company and on being persuaded by said Biswanath Sarangia, the Petitioner and her husband went to Malkangiri and persuaded the villagers to make the deposit.

¶19

It is further submitted by the learned counsel with vehemence that the husband of the Petitioner was taken into custody in a connected matter and he is in custody.

¶20

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner has been arrayed as an accused only because she is the spouse of the principal accused. As such the Petitioner is a victim of the circumstance “sinned against than sinning”.

¶21

It is also stated that the Petitioner has two children. Hence, taking into account the nature of allegation and since Petitioner is a lady, leniency ought to be shown to her. 8. Learned counsels for the State and the Informant oppose such prayer. 9. It is brought to the notice of this Court that in the meanwhile charge sheet has been filed and the

¶22

Page 2 of 4

¶23

Petitioner has been cited as an absconder and N.B.W(A) has been issued.

¶24

Learned counsel for the Informant also echoes the submission of the learned counsel for the State that taking into account the role ascribed, her plea of innocence ought not to be considered.

¶25

This Court perused the statement of the Complainant cited as C.W.1 as well as other charge sheeted witnesses styled as investigation of witnesses upto C.W.48. The common thread in all the statements is that the present Petitioner along with her husband have conducted the meeting and persuaded the gullible to make the investment. Hence, the bogie of being a victim of the circumstances prima facie is not tenable.

¶26

It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the Petitioner has been cited as an accused in the following cases;

¶27

“1.Malkanagiri P.S. Case No.161 of 2025 under Sections 318(4)/3(5) of BNS.

¶28

Malkanagiri P.S. Case No.172 of 2025 under Sections 318(4)/3(5) of BNS.

¶29

Malkanagiri P.S. Case No.166 of 2025 under Sections 318(4)/3(5) of BNS,

¶30

Malkanagiri P.S. Case No.165 of 2025 under Sections 318(4)/3(5) of BNS.

¶31

Page 3 of 4

¶32

Orkel P.S. Case No.92 of 2025 under Sections 318(4)/3(5) of BNS.”

¶33

Considering the nature of allegation and keeping in view the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Serious Fraud Investigation Officer vrs. Aditya Sarda, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 764 and the offence being an economic offence and its societal ramification, this Court is not inclined to entertain the application for pre-arrest bail.

¶34

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.

¶35

It is needless to state that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of consideration of the Petitioner prayer for pre-arrest bail and the same ought not to be considered as this Court expressing any opinion regarding complicity of the Petitioner which has to be probed independently. 15. Accordingly, the ABLAPL stands disposed of.

(V. NARASINGH)

Judge

PKS

Signature Not Verified

¶40

Digitally Signed Signed by: PRADEEP KUMAR SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cutt ack Date: 01-Dec-2025 14:51:22

¶41

Page 4 of 4

Laxmipriya Parida v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmipriya Parida v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Kendra@Gangadhar Gagrai

Laxmidhar Behera Vs State of Odisha

Rama Chandra Dash Vs Govt. of India,Ministry of Finance,Department of Revenue

Laxmipriya Parida Vs State of Odisha

Khursid Khan Vs State of Odisha

Ashok Kumar Behera Vs State of Odisha