Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
G. SATAPATHY
Saiyad Jiyahjur Rahaman – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha (OPID) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. bail application details and allegations (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments for and against bail (Para 3) |
| 3. court's analysis and discretion in bail (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. rejection of bail application (Para 6 , 7) |
JUDGMENT :
1. This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with EOW Bhubaneswar PS Case No.7 of 2024 corresponding to CT Case No.17 of 2024 pending in the file of learned Presiding Officer, Designated Court under OPID ACT , Cuttack, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.406/ 420/ 467/468/ 471/ 120-B of IPC r/w Section 6 of OPID ACT .
3. In the course of hearing, Mr. D. Nayak, learned Senior Counsel, who is being assisted by Mr. Manish Dhir, learned counsel for the petitioner very emphatically submits that even if the materials collected in the course of investigation are taken into consideration, the petitioner having not completely cheated anybody has paid some amount and he has got intention to clear up the investment of all the investors, but how long a person can be detained in custody pending trial, when he is ready to return the investment with some breathing time and although the petitioner has been found involv
Bail cannot be granted when there is substantial evidence of fraud, a significant flight risk, and a history of similar offenses by the petitioner.
The bail application was rejected due to the petitioner's absconding and noncompliance with bail conditions, emphasizing the importance of respecting legal processes.
In serious fraud cases, bail may be denied due to substantial allegations, criminal antecedents, and flight risk, despite long custody periods.
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 court found that the petitioner had no direct involvement in financial misappropriation, warranting bail with conditions, considering her gender and pre-trial detention.
Bail should not be denied solely based on the seriousness of the charges; considerations must include the necessity of ensuring the accused's presence at trial and not obstructing justice.
Bail is the rule while incarceration is the exception; absence of direct allegations against the petitioner supports bail in the context of ongoing pre-trial detention.
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
