Niroj Kumar Bardhan Vs State of Odisha

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on instruction from the petitioners, submits that, except the present bail application, no other bail application of the petitioners are pending in any other Court relating to the aforesaid F.I.R.

¶28

5. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant, namely Sukanta Swalsingh , who is the nephew of the victim, lodged a written report before the I.I.C., Rayagada Police Station , inter alia alleging that on 11.11.2025 at about 12.30 P.M. , the accused Ujala Bardhan came to the house of the victim along with another person, whom she introduced as a bank employee. It is alleged that both the accused persons demanded the life certificate

¶29

of the victim, stating that the same was required for release of pension benefits. When the informant questioned them regarding the purpose of their visit, they reiterated that the life certificate was necessary for pension purposes. Upon the informant stating that the victim was not receiving any pension, the accused persons left the spot. Subsequently, the informant came to know that the victim’s husband, who was a government teacher, had expired while in service and that the victim was, in fact, receiving family pension. It

¶30

Page 2 of 5

¶31

is further alleged that, with the intention to deceive the victim and misappropriate her pension and death benefit arrears, the accused persons, including Niroj Kumar Bardhan and others, fraudulently linked their mobile numbers with the victim’s Aadhaar and life certificate and, by using ATM facilities, withdrew pension amounts from the victim’s bank account. Hence, the F.I.R.

¶32

6. Learned counsel for the State has read out the statement of

¶33

the victim recorded under Section 180 of B.N.S.S., 2023. She in her statement has stated as under:-

¶34

“My name is Subhagamana Swalsing (82), wife of Late Sarangadhar Nayak, resident of VillageSwalsing Sahi, Raygarh, P.S.- Raigarh, DistrictGajapati. Today, dated 21.11.2025, my oral statement is as follows:- After the death of the first wife of Sarangadhar Nayak, I, Subhagamana Swalsing, was married to him as his second wife, and in the year 2006 I became a widow. Niroj Bardhan, son of Saroj Bardhan @ Landa, has never informed me about the pension, nor has he ever given me any money. He used to take me to the Paralakhemundi Bank in his vehicle, stating that I would receive money, but he has not given me a single pie. I used to collect plastic bottles for my survival. For the last six to seven months, I have not been able to go anywhere by walking due to an accident, which resulted in a fracture in my leg. Now, I have come to know from everyone that Niroj is taking my entire pension amount by cheating.

¶35

This statement of mine is true.”

¶36

Page 3 of 5

¶37

7. Regard being had to the period of custody from 22.11.2025

¶38

and the nature of allegation, I am inclined to admit the petitioner No.2-Ujala Bradhan @ Soumya Ranjan Bradhan on bail. However, in so far as the petitioner No.1-Niroj Kumar Bardhan is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw the petition reserving his right to renew the bail plea after the charge-sheet is filed.

¶39

Hence, the petitioner No.2- Ujala Bradhan @ Soumya Ranjan Bradhan is directed to be released on bail by the Court in seisin over the matter in the aforesaid case on such terms and conditions as it would deem just and proper, subject to the following additional conditions:-

¶40

(i) The petitioner No.2 shall appear before the trial Court on each date on which the case is posted for trial.

¶41

(ii) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court till disposal of the trial.

¶42

(iii) He shall not tamper with the evidence in any manner whatsoever.

¶43

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

¶44

Violation of any of the conditions shall entail consideration for cancellation of the bail granted to the

¶45

Page 4 of 5

¶46

petitioner. In the event, any of the bail conditions are violated by the petitioner, the prosecution is given liberty to move appropriate application before the Court below for recalling the concession of bail. If such application is moved, the trial Court should decide the application on its own merit.

¶47

8. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of.

¶48

(S.S. Mishra) Judge

¶49

Swarna

¶50

Signature Not Verified

¶51

Digitally Signed Signed by: SWARNAPRAVA DASH Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 06-Jan-2026 16:22:36

¶52

Page 5 of 5

Niroj Kumar Bardhan v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Niroj Kumar Bardhan 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

Sankar Sabar Vs State of Odisha

Satyajit Dhal Vs State of Odisha

Ashok Kumar Khatua Vs State of Odisha

Dharani Bagarti Vs State of Odisha

Dushasan Mallick Vs State of Odisha

Tabinga Digal Vs State of Odisha