Orissa HC Grants Bail To Couple Accused Of Impersonating PM Modi's Principal Secretary's Relatives To Exert Undue Influence

The Orissa High Court on Monday granted bail to a couple accused of impersonating the daughter and son-in-law of Pramod Kumar Mishra, Principal Secretary to Narendra Modi, Prime Minister of India, for creating undue influence and exerting pressure on senior officials for different fraudulent purposes.

While granting the conditional bail to the duo, the Single Bench of Justice Radha Krishna Pattanaik observed –

“…the Court finds that substantial part of investigation to be over since the preliminary chargesheet is filed in the meantime. The petitioners are local residents and are involved in running business with companies located in the State and outside, hence, there is a remote chance of tampering with the evidence…It is not that the petitioners have so much of clout and status to influence the investigation and therefore, if released, might tamper with evidence.”

Case Background

An official of Kalinga Institute of Social Science, Bhubaneswar (KISS) informed the police about the visit of the petitioners to their premises on 26.12.2024, who met a few senior officials. During such visit, it was alleged, they introduced themselves to be the daughter and son-in-law respectively of Mr. P.K. Mishra, Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister of India. Suspecting their claim along with noticing inconsistent statements and behaviour, the official reported the matter to the police.

Upon receipt of information, an investigation was launched and in course of such investigation, one morphed photograph of the petitioner Hansita Abhilipsa with Mr. P.K. Mishra was seized. It was further revealed that the petitioner managed to create the morphed picture with the assistance of one Jyoti Prakash Mund.

It also came to light that the petitioners with an intention to cheat and pressurize the senior officials and exert undue influence on them, committed such mischief and hence, a prima facie case was established for having committed the alleged offences. The further claim is that the petitioners were issued with notices served in terms of Section 35, BNSS but they were arrested on December 29, 2024.

The investigation led to the search of the offices of the petitioner Anil Kumar Mohanty in order to ascertain any document regarding fraudulent transactions. Seizures were made in respect of agreements, one MoU etc. The investigation also revealed that the petitioner Hansita Abhilipsa with the help of said Jyoti Prakash Mund managed a photograph of her with Mr. Manoj Ahuja, Chief Secretary to Government of Odisha.

It was alleged that the petitioner is in the habit of morphing her pictures with influential people and used to introduce them to others as their relatives. The investigation revealed the details about the transactions of the companies run by the petitioners. Besides the above, few costly vehicles were seized from the possession of the petitioners.

It was further revealed that the petitioner Hansita Abhilipsa is involved in a police case registered under Section 506 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3, SC & ST (PoA) Act. However, she suppressed having such case and changed her name to obtain passport. Thus, another police case was registered against her on January 15, 2025 under Sections 417, 419, 420, 468 and 471, IPC read with Section 12 of the Passports Act.

The investigation revealed that in 2022, the petitioners signed an MoU with ESL, Bokaro, a company of Vedanta Group for CSR rehabilitation project worth of Rs.283 crores in the name of four companies and in that connection, Rs.29 crores have been paid to them. It is alleged that in view of the high value project in favour of the companies managed by the petitioners, a reasonable suspicion regarding fraud was entertained as a means to acquire the same.

During investigation, a bank transaction of Rs. 40 lakhs was noticed which was between Saiansh Company and MS Ramaiah Institute Technology, Bengaluru paid in connection with admission of the son of a highly placed official of ESL Bokaro. The tax invoices also revealed several transactions to have been taken place with payments made to the companies owned by the petitioners.

Contentions of Parties

Senior Advocate SC Mohapatra argued that none of the witnesses stated anything adverse against the petitioner Hansita Abhilipsa, hence, no case of cheating by impersonation is established especially for the purpose of fetching high value contracts. He further asserted that even for the sake of argument if a case is made out, it would be one of misrepresentation and not impersonation for the purpose of cheating or attempting to cheat someone.

It was contended that after registration of the case, though statements of witnesses have been recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of BNSS but the same have not revealed or in any way proved that the accused ever duped any company by impersonation.

The State, on the other hand, objected to the plea of bail by submitting that the petitioners by identifying themselves as the daughter and son-in-law of a prominent figure successfully managed to influence many while running the business of the companies and in one of such instances, had managed to procure a contract with ESL, Bokaro and in that connection, an MoU was signed with a project worth Rs.283 crores.

It was further contended that the petitioners managed to create a clout by illegal impersonation. As the conduct and mischief by the petitioners have been revealed with the seizure of the morphed pictures and other documents and they are involved in running business involving high value projects and as the further investigation is in progress, they should not be granted bail.

Court's Observations

The Court said that allegation against the petitioners is that they identified themselves as relatives of a prominent figure and managed to obtain a project from ESL Bokaro, with such other criminal activities still to be unearthed. However, the complaint is not about cheating by personation lodged by the company with whom an MoU has been entered into and executed.

It further noted that in course of investigation, the senior officials of the company of ESL, Bokaro revealed that the petitioners claimed to be relatives of Mr. P.K. Mishra, Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister and there is no denial to the fact that morphed pictures have been seized during such investigation.

“As such, the allegation is that the petitioners appear to have introduced themselves as relatives of a prominent personality in order to impress upon and create undue influence on officials and it is claimed that in the event of their release, both might resort to similar kind of activities,” it further noted.

Examining the relevance of the observations made by the Supreme Court in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2013) relating to grant of bail in economic offence cases, the Court said that the facts of that case are different from the case in hand.

“In so far as the MoU, the company in question did not allege any such mischief regarding impersonation. At the same time, the Court finds that transactions have taken place on paper with regard to the contract with the alleged company in respect of which necessary seizures of all such relevant documents have been made,” the Court observed.

Above all, it held, the financial transaction has already been investigated upon, especially with regard to ESL, Bokaro. Since high value transactions have taken place and it was in running the businesses of the companies, the suspicion has been entertained and whether such suspicion is genuine or not can only be disinterred during further investigation.

Therefore, the Bench was of the view that the petitioners should be granted bail by imposing appropriate conditions, especially taking into account the fact that the investigation has substantially progressed, the initial charge-sheet has already been filed and the petitioners are in custody since December, 2024.

Accordingly, the petitioners were granted bail subject to furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50,000/-(rupees fifty thousand) each with one solvent surety each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, which shall be at liberty to impose such other conditions as deemed proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

“…they shall not leave the jurisdiction of learned court below without permission and surrender their passports forthwith; shall co-operate the IO concerned in the further investigation, till the same is concluded; and shall not to indulge themselves in such similar mischief after being released.” the Court further directed.

Case Title: Bishnupriya Chand @ Hansita Abhilipsa v. State of Odisha & tagged matter

Case No: BLAPL Nos. 1538 & 1549 of 2025

Date of Order: March 17, 2025

Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. Soura Chandra Mohapatra, Senior Advocate along with Mr. D. Mund, Advocate; Mr. Bibhu Prasad Tripathy, Senior Advocate

Counsel for the State: Mr. P.S. Nayak, Additional Government Advocate

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 50

Click Here To Read/Download Order