The court dismissed an application for anticipatory bail filed by petitioners implicated in an economic offence involving cheating and prize chits. Considering the gravity of the case, the court declined bail and vacated an interim order.
the application for anticipatory bail is dismissed; the interim order dated 21.3.2018 is vacated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
ABLAPL No.2653 of 2018
05. 16.09.2019
The petitioners having been implicated in Rayagada P.S. Case No.40 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. Case No.119 of 2015 registered for alleged commission of offence under Sections 420/120-B of the IPC read with section 4/5/6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation (Banning) Act, 1978 pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Rayagada have filed this application for grant of anticipatory bail.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State.
Considering the submission made and on going through the materials available on record; further keeping in view the nature and gravity of the economic offence in which the petitioners are said to have been involved as the key functionary of the Company as also the deep-rooted conspiracy, huge loss of the public and their affect in the economy of the State as above, posing grave threat to the financial health of large number of persons, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
The ABLAPL is dismissed accordingly.
The interim order dated 21.3.2018 passed by this Court stands vacated.
…………………….. D. Dash, J.
Basu
3 issues framed by the court
whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail given the nature of the economic offence involved
whether the deep-rooted conspiracy and potential economic loss warrant denying bail
whether the interim order dated 21.3.2018 should be vacated
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioners (unnamed in text)
State
D. Dash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
