SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Ori) 357

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
G. SATAPATHY, J.
Chizobam Krist @ Christoperchizobam @ Krist - Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha - Opposite Party
Blapl No.1770 of 2025
Decided On : 23-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Ms. S. Sharma, Advocate
For the Opposite Party :Mr. P. Satpathy, Addl. PP. Mr. B. Tripathy, Advocate

In bail applications concerning severe allegations of cyber fraud, the court must consider the risk of the accused absconding, especially when allegations involve significant sums and forged documents.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 34 - Information Technology Act - Sections 66

(C), 66

(D) - Bail application for cyber crime involving allegations of fraud amounting to Rs.2.7 Crores through forgery and deceitful tactics, including misuse of banking facilities and false identities, resulting in a reasonable apprehension of absconding if released on bail. (Paras 1-5)

(B) Presumption of innocence - While the accused claims lack of evidence linking him directly to the crime, the court noted his prior confessions and the gravity of the allegations warrant a cautionary approach. (Para 3)

(C) Criteria for bail - The court emphasized that the severity of the allegations, particularly in high-value fraud cases involving international elements, necessitates careful scrutiny before granting bail. (Para 4)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a foreign national, is accused of cyber fraud, receiving substantial sums under false pretenses linked to a contract purportedly from an international organization. Allegations include utilizing fake documents and bank accounts for the crime.

Findings of Court:
There is substantial evidence indicating the petitioner’s involvement in serious fraud and a possibility of him absconding upon release.

Issues: The court addressed the likelihood of the petitioner absconding, the sufficiency of evidence against him, and the implications of granting bail in the context of serious financial crimes.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of safeguarding the judicial process, outlining the risks associated with releasing an accused in high-stakes fraud cases, particularly involving falsified documents and international scams.

Result: Bail application rejected.

Table of Content
1. facts outlining the bail application and allegations. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments regarding bail conditions and allegations. (Para 3)
3. court's observations on the investigation and evidence. (Para 4)
4. court's reasoning for rejecting the bail application. (Para 5)
5. final decision on the bail application. (Para 6)

Judgment :

G. Satapathy, J.

1. This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with CID, CB Cyber Crime PS Case No.10 of 2024 corresponding to CT Case No.391 of 2024 pending in the file of learned SDJM, Bhubaneswar for commission of offences punishable U/Ss. 419/420/465/467/468/471/120-B/34 of IPC r/w Sec.66(C)/66(D) of IT Act.

2. The allegation against the petitioner emanates from the fact that the informant having prior acquaintance with one ex-bureaucrat of Odisha received an E-mail stated to be from him for supply of Iranian Saffron to the World Bank headquarter on the expectation of good profit margin and he accordingly, supplied 110Kgs of Iranian Saffron as per the purchase order stated to be issued by World Bank at the cost of Rs.2.7Crores deposited in different Indian Bank accounts as per the invoice enclosed and accordingly, in the process, it is stated that World Bank signed a contract with him for supply of 6600Kgs of Iranian Saffron at the rate of 550Kg per month, but the organization claimed to be World Bank asked him to open an off-shore Bank account with Vault Off-Shore Bank which was accordingly opened by depositing a sum of $53,000USD, but his arrear bill amounting to $1.2milliion USD as agreed upon could be deposited to his account, however, the informant received a letter from Vault Off- Shore Bank asking him to deposit a sum of $77,550USD towards insurance coverage and this is how the informant came to know about cyber fraud upon him. Accordingly, he lodged an FIR resulting in registration of Cyber Crime Police Station case no.10 of 2024 necessitating the investigation in this case and in the course of investigation, finding the involvement of the present petitioner who is a Nigerian National, he was arrested ultimately landing him before this Court in this bail application.

3. Ms. Sushma Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner appearing virtually submits that although the petitioner is a foreigner, but he would abide by any terms and conditions for his release on bail and accordingly, he draws the attention of the Court to the judgment of the Apex Court in Frank Vitus Vrs. Narcotics Control Bureau and others ; 2025 INSC 30. She further submits that although there appears allegation against the petitioner for misappropriating Rs.2.7Crores by transferring the same to nine accounts, but the prosecution has utterly failed to connect the petitioner with the transfer of the aforesaid amount to nine accounts and all the allegations leveled against the petitioner are mere allegation only and no one should be deprived of his life and liberty merely on some allegation and the petitioner is ready to abide by any condition which would be imposed on him for his release on bail. On the aforesaid submission, Ms. Sharma prays to grant bail to the petitioner on any condition.

3.1. On the other hand, Mr. Brahmananda Tripathy, learned counsel for the informant by taking this Court through the relevant paragraph of the charge-sheet submits that not only it has been alleged against the petitioner, but also he has confessed before the police for committing the crime and therefore, once the petitioner is released on bail, he may abscond from the country. On the aforesaid submission Mr. Tripathy prays to reject the bail application of the petitioner.

3.2. More or less is the similar submission advanced by Mr. P. Satpathy, learned Addl. PP who in the course of opposing grant of bail to the petitioner submits that not only the petitioner has defrauded the innocent person, but also he along with his associates has committed the crime by forging pass-port and visa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top