Chandan Kumar Bhuyan @ Koko Vs State of Odisha

The Petitioner is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with C.T Case No.913 of 2025 pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C-V (Cog. Taking), Bhubaneswar, arising out of Bharatpur P.S. Case No.302 of 2025 for commission of offence under Sections 318(4)/324(2)/3(5) of BNS.

¶16

It is submitted by the learned counsel that even if the entire allegation of the FIR is accepted at its face value, a very improbability of the case of the Informant ought not to be levelled against the Petitioner. Hence, he may be protected by pre-arrest bail.

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

It is the further submission of the learned counsel that since the allegation is the nature of civil liability no FIR ought to have been registered at the first place.

¶19

Such submission is opposed by the learned counsel for the State as well as the Informant.

¶20

On the basis of the materials on record, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the State as well as the Informant that the amount involved is about Rs.1 crore and this Court finds substance on the submission of the learned counsel for the Informant that the Petitioner had the mens rea from the very inception to dupe the Informant. It is also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the State that the Petitioner is cited as an accused in the following two cases of similar nature apart from the case at hand.

¶21

“Airfield Case No.365 of 2024 under under Sections 318(3)/318(4) of BNS.

¶22

Bhartpur P.S. Case No.475 of 2025 under Section 318(4)/3(5) of BNS.”

¶23

Per contra, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner had issued cheques for payment of the amount but unfortunately the same have been bounced and since the Informant has initiated the proceeding under Section 138 of the N.I Act which is the subject-matter of challenge in ICC Nos.440 of 2025 and 7406 of 2025.

¶24

Page 2 of3

¶25

It is submitted that since recourse has already been taken to the provisions as contained under the N.I. Act that ought to weigh with this Court in considering the prayer of the Petitioner for pre-arrest bail.

¶26

Considering the nature of allegations and the manner in which the alleged offence has been committed and taking into account the criminal antecedents of the Petitioner, this Court is not inclined to entertain the application for pre-arrest 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.

¶27

The ABLAPL is accordingly disposed of.

¶28

(V. NARASINGH) Judge

¶29

PKS

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

Digitally Signed Signed by: PRADEEP KUMAR SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cutt ack Date: 10-Dec-2025 19:34:50

¶32

Page 3 of3

Chandan Kumar Bhuyan @ Koko v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandan Kumar Bhuyan @ Koko v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rashmita Das Vs State of Odisha

Suman Das @ Sai Aditya Behera Vs State of Odisha

Tathagata Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Manoj Kumar Biswal Vs State of Odisha

Pankaj Bihari Parida Vs State of Odisha

Dilu Sahoo @ Sidhant Sahoo Vs State of Odisha