Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
G. SATAPATHY
Susanta Kumar Samal – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations of financial fraud against society officials (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court's analysis of bail decision factors and fraud implications (Para 3 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. arguments for bail based on legitimacy of transactions (Para 4) |
| 4. rejection of bail applications (Para 10) |
JUDGMENT :
1. These are the bail applications U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with EOW PS Case No.03 of 2025 corresponding to CT Case No.4(C) of 2025 pending in the file of learned Presiding Officer, Designated Court, Under OPID Act,
2. The background of facts giving rise to these two bail applications are that around eighteen years back, one society namely Gandhamardan Loading Agency and Transporting Co-operative Society Ltd, Suakati, Keonjhar (hereinafter referred to as “the society”) was created for the development of the affected villages of Gandhamardan Mines, Putulipani Mines and Khandadhar Mines, but since last seven years (2017-18 to 2023-24), the president and the secretary of the aforesaid organization with assistance of others were/are doing illegal business instead of doing developmental work by taking the loading work of extracted ores from these m
The court determined that the serious allegations of financial fraud, coupled with the accused's criminal history and risk of witness tampering, justified a refusal of bail.
Bail – In a case involving large scale financial fraud particularly those affecting public, Court shall be duty-bound to approach the case for bail in a cautious and guarded manner.
In serious fraud cases, bail may be denied due to substantial allegations, criminal antecedents, and flight risk, despite long custody periods.
The court emphasized the balance between individual liberty and the interest of society in deciding bail applications, considering the nature and seriousness of economic offences and their impact on ....
Point of Law : Power under Section 438 of Cr.P.C, being an extraordinary remedy, has to be exercised sparingly, otherwise same would adversely affect investigation.
Anticipatory bail should not be granted routinely in serious economic offences involving large-scale fraud, as custodial interrogation is crucial for effective investigation.
Bail is the rule and custody is the exception; without substantial evidence, personal liberty should not be curtailed.
Economic offences need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country, requiring a different approach in the matter of bail.
The court balanced the right to personal liberty with the need for the accused's presence at trial, emphasizing that continued custody should be based on the risk of interference in the administratio....
The delay in trial, seriousness of economic offences, and the larger interest of the public are crucial factors in determining bail applications for serious economic offences.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
