Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
G.SATAPATHY
Jharana Sahoo – Appellant
Versus
State of Orissa(OPID) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
G. Satapathy, J.
1. This is the bail application U/S.483 of the BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with EOW, CID CD, Bhubaneswar PS Case No.18 of 2025 corresponding to C.T. Case No.22 of 2025 pending in the Court of learned Presiding Officer, Designated Court under OPID Act, Cuttack, for offence punishable U/Ss. 406/420/467/468/471/120B of IPC r/w Sec. 4, 5 & 6 of PCMCS(Banning) Act 1978 & Sec. 21(1)(2)(3)/23/25 of BUDS ACT .
2. The case against the petitioner arise out of an FIR lodged by one Jayant Mishra by stating therein that one Chandra Sekhar Sahoo, Managing Director of M/s. Evoreach Ventures Pvt. Ltd. was known to him and the said company has two Directors namely petitioner-Jharana Sahoo and Kabita Rana and in the month of February, 2022, said Chandra Sekhar Sahoo convinced/allured him to invest money in the lucrative scheme launched by his company on the assurance of getting double return in 30 months with monthly return basis. Basing on such representation, the informant initially invested Rs.5.5 lakhs on 08.03.2022, Rs.4.5 lakhs on 11.03.2022 in the name of his wife Abhilasha Mishra and the informant further invested Rs.2.9 lakhs on 13.05.202
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 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.
The main legal point established is the consideration of the petitioner's limited role, conduct, and efforts in granting bail, emphasizing the need for a fair trial.
In serious fraud cases, bail may be denied due to substantial allegations, criminal antecedents, and flight risk, despite long custody periods.
Forgery of valuable security, will - Bail rejected - Petitioner was Managing Director of company and oral as well as documentary evidence available on record prima facie indicates that he along with ....
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....
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
