Female Relatives Of Prime Accused Not Directly Involved In Ponzi Operations Entitled To Bail Under Section 480 BNSS Proviso Despite Economic Offence: Orissa High Court

Orissa High Court, in a significant ruling dated August 4, 2026, held that female relatives of a prime accused in a multi-crore financial fraud are entitled to the beneficial consideration under the first proviso to Section 480 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), when their involvement is limited to holding shares and receiving company funds without actively alluring investors.

A bench of Justice G. Satapathy observed that although economic offences involving ponzi schemes are grave, women who lack criminal antecedents, pose no flight risk, and are not accused of direct solicitation should be granted statutory relief.

The matter arose from bail applications filed under Section 483 of the BNSS in connection with an EOW Bhubaneswar police case concerning massive financial fraud allegedly committed by companies floated by the prime accused, Tushar Bhanjo. The companies allegedly collected crores of rupees from thousands of investors across multiple states in gross violation of Nidhi Rules and RBI regulations regarding non-banking financial companies. While the prime accused was alleged to have masterminded the ponzi operations and defalcated over fifty crores, his wife, Dwipika Bhanjo, and daughter, Tandra Bhanjo, were subsequently charge-sheeted as shareholders and directors who received diverted company funds into their personal bank accounts.

The primary question before the court was whether female directors and shareholders allegedly receiving diverted funds from a fraudulent entity can claim the benefit of the first proviso to Section 480 of the BNSS in economic offences. The court was also called upon to determine whether parity in custody could be extended to such relatives alongside the prime architect of a multi-state ponzi scam.

Court Examines Nature Of Accusation Against Women

The court observed that while the main allegations of floating fraudulent companies and collecting over fifty-eight crores from the general public were directed squarely against the co-accused Tushar Bhanjo, the allegations against his wife and daughter were distinct. The bench noted that despite being named as shareholders and directors, there was no material indicating that Dwipika Bhanjo or Tandra Bhanjo had invited or allured any investors to invest money in the ponzi schemes.

"No Material To Indicate Flight Risk Or Tampering"

The bench pointed out that the investigation had not unearthed any evidence suggesting the female petitioners would pose a flight risk or attempt to tamper with prosecution evidence if released on liberty. The court emphasized that the Investigating Agency confirmed the women possessed no prior criminal antecedents, satisfying the core prerequisites for equitable judicial consideration.

Statutory Entitlement Under Section 480 BNSS Proviso

Highlighting their status as women with minimal direct involvement in the active solicitation of funds, the court ruled that they fell squarely within the protective umbrella of the first proviso appended to Section 480 of the BNSS. The bench noted that although some funds were credited to their personal accounts from the corporate entities, their secondary role justified differentiating their custody status from that of the prime accused.

"Main Allegation Directed Against Principal Accused"

The court refused to extend the same leniency to the prime mover of the financial scam, declining the bail prayer of Tushar Bhanjo due to the sheer magnitude of the public funds defalcated and the ongoing nature of the investigation. The bench underscored that differential treatment was warranted given that the primary architect retained control and direct responsibility for orchestrating the illegal financial operations.

Final Directions And Orders Issued

The Orissa High Court rejected the bail application of Tushar Bhanjo while allowing the bail prayers of Tandra Bhanjo and Dwipika Bhanjo. The female petitioners were ordered to be released on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 5,00,000 each with two solvent sureties, subject to conditions including the surrender of their passports and a mandate to cooperate fully with ongoing investigations.

The ruling clarifies that the statutory protective proviso for women under Section 480 of the BNSS remains a vital safeguard that applies even in serious economic offences, provided the female applicants lack direct involvement in the core criminal enterprise and pose no risk of obstructing justice. The decision carefully balances the gravity of large-scale financial frauds with individual culpability and statutory entitlements.

Date of Decision: 04 August 2026