Authority: High Court of Orissa at Cuttack

Order Date: 04 August 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Tandra Bhanjo, Dwipika Bhanjo, and Tusar Bhanjo filed bail applications under Section 483 of the BNSS. The applications correspond to BLAPL Nos. 2637, 2639 & 7495 of 2026.
  • Opposite Party: State of Orissa (OPID).
  • Underlying criminal matter: EOW, Bhubaneswar Police Station Case No. 8 of 2024 (CT Case No. 18(A) of 2024) pending before the Designated Court under the OPID Act, Cuttack.
  • Alleged offences: IPC Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) read with Sections 4, 5, 6 of the PCMCS (Banning) Act, Section 6 of the OPID Act, and Section 66(D) of the IT Act.
  • FIR lodged by Manmohan Dora alleging large‑scale financial fraud by two companies – Harit Krishi Nidhi Ltd. (registered in Kolkata) and Transvision Dream Multi Trade Pvt. Ltd. (registered in Cuttack). Both companies allegedly collected crores of rupees from investors across Odisha, West Bengal, Chhattisgarh, Assam, Tripura, Maharashtra and Bangladesh, violating Nidhi Rules that restrict operations to the state of incorporation and prohibit chit‑fund activities. Neither company filed NDH‑4 to become a recognised Nidhi company.
  • Shareholding and financial details:
  • Harit Krishi Nidhi Ltd. has 7 directors; Tusar Bhanjo holds 51,000 shares, Dwipika and Tandra each hold 10,000 shares, and four other directors hold between 5,000‑10,000 shares.
  • Company bank accounts: Axis Bank (₹43,67,70,781 credited), Yes Bank (₹3,93,42,718), Bandhan Bank (₹10,02,38,721). From the Axis account, ₹1,06,10,000 was transferred to Tusar’s personal account.
  • Personal accounts: Tusar Bhanjo received >₹50 crore in total; Dwipika Bhanjo received ₹82.38 lakhs across three accounts; Tandra Bhanjo received ₹4.58 crore across five accounts, including ₹47.69 lakhs from the company.
  • Investigation resulted in a first charge sheet against Tusar Bhanjo and the two companies. A second charge sheet dated 15‑09‑2025 added Dwipika and Tandra Bhanjo, alleging diversion of funds but no direct role in attracting investors.
  • All three petitioners were arrested. Bail for Dwipika and Tandra was previously rejected, leading to Special Leave Petitions (Nos. 13074/2026 & 13326/2026) before the Supreme Court, which set aside the earlier order. Tusar’s earlier bail application (BLAPL No. 916/2025) was also rejected.
  • Counsel submissions:
  • For petitioners (Mr. Sumit Sekhar Pattanaik): argued Dwipika and Tandra are merely shareholders, not involved in fraud, have no charge sheet in the first filing, and are entitled to bail under the first proviso of Sec. 480 BNSS. Also contended Tusar’s trial is delayed (62 witnesses) and evidence is already seized, so bail would not jeopardise prosecution.
  • For OPID (Mr. J.P. Patra): asserted that Dwipika and Tandra, as directors and shareholders, received diverted funds (₹4.56 crore and ₹82.38 lakhs respectively) and thus participated in cheating investors. Emphasised Tusar’s alleged collection of >₹56 crore and risk of tampering with evidence.
  • Court’s assessment: No material indicating that Dwipika or Tandra lured investors, posed a flight risk, or would tamper with evidence. Both are women with no criminal antecedent, qualifying for the benefit of Sec. 480 BNSS.

Final Outcome

  • Bail rejected for principal accused Tusar Bhanjo (BLAPL No. 7495/2026).
  • Bail granted to co‑accused Dwipika Bhanjo and Tandra Bhanjo (BLAPL Nos. 2637 & 2639/2026) on the condition of furnishing bail bonds of Rs 5,00,000 each with two solvent sureties of the same amount.
  • Additional conditions: surrender of passports (or affidavit confirming surrender), cooperation with ongoing investigation, and compliance with any further terms the court deems fit.
  • The orders were disposed of, and a certified copy was to be issued and communicated to the concerned jail.

Topics: Bail Decision, Financial Fraud