Orissa High Court
Vinjamuri Sandhya Valli vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 1 September, 2025
Author: V. Narasingh
Bench: V. Narasingh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ABLAPL No. 12412 of 2021
Vinjamuri Sandhya Valli .... Petitioner
Mr. M. Kanungo, Sr. Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. A.K. Nayak, Adv. (OPID)
Mr. S.Z. Hussain, Adv. (Informant)
CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
ORDER
Order No. 01.09.2025
18. 1. None appears for the Informant when the
matter is called.
2. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the
Petitioner and learned counsel for the OPID.
3. The Petitioner is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with C.T. Case No.4 of 2019 pending on the file of learned P.O., D.C. under OPID Act, Cuttack, arising out of EOW P.S. Case No.12 of 2019 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 420/406/467/468/471/120B of IPC and Section 4/5 and 6 of PC and MC Scheme (Banning), 1978 read with Section 6 of the OPID Act.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the present Petitioner is one of the directors of the company i.e. Welfare Buildings and Estates Pvt. Ltd. and it is brought to the notice of this Page 1 of 4 Court that while dealing with the bail application of managing Director (Vijay Prasad Malla @ Bijaya Prasad Mala) by order dated 06.12.2021 in BLAPL No.8214 of 2021 this Court while directing release of the said Petitioner on bail inter alia directed that the said accused shall submit an undertaking to return and deposit the invested amounts of the account holders of the company as and when intimated. The modalities of which are to be fixed by the Court below. For convenience of the reference, paragraph- 13 of the said order is extracted hereunder;
"13. In the result, it is directed that the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lac) with two local solvent sureties for the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below with the conditions, such as, he shall deposit a property security of Rs. 30,00,000/- (rupees thirty lac); shall submit an undertaking to return and deposit the invested amounts of the account holders of the company as and when intimated, modalities of which, are to be fixed by the court below; and shall submit to the jurisdiction of the investigating authority, whenever directed, without default."
5. Referring to the same, it is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, on instruction, that in the meanwhile the invested amounts has been returned to the respective account Page 2 of 4 holders and hence taking into account the nature of allegation, custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is not warranted.
6. Learned counsel for the OPID opposes such prayer and referring to the FIR submits that her complicity is at par with the Managing Director and in fact she was the face of the company in Odisha and lured the investors to make the deposit. Hence, no leniency ought to be shown.
7. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, on instruction, submits that that all the investors in terms of the intimation as gathered from the investigating officer have been paid in the meanwhile.
8. Such submission is opposed by the learned counsel for the OPID, inter alia, on the ground that he cannot countenance such submission that all the investors have been covered.
9. Without prejudice to the objection of the learned counsel for the OPID, Mr. Nayak, taking into account the submission that most of the investors have got refund of their money, this court is persuaded to hold that custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is not warranted.
10. Hence, it is directed that on surrendering within three weeks hence and moving for bail, the Petitioner shall be released on bail by the learned Page 3 of 4 Court in seisin on such terms as deemed just and proper.
11. It is needless to state that the Petitioner shall cooperate with the ongoing investigation and shall not leave the country without the specific permission of the learned Court in seisin till the conclusion of investigation and shall appear as and when intimated in the said regard. She will submit details of her mobile number and email at which she can be contacted in addition to her postal address.
12. In the event there is any violation, it shall be open for the OPID to seek variance of this order.
13. Since it is stated that the Petitioner ordinarily resides in Vishakhapatnam, accordingly while issuing the notice at least seven days notice shall be given to enable her to appear before the I.O. as and when summoned.
14. Accordingly, the ABLAPL stands disposed of.
15. U.C.C. as per rules.
(V. NARASINGH) Judge Santoshi Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTOSHI LENKA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 03-Sep-2025 11:15:19 Page 4 of 4