Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Shadab Alam Vs State of Odisha — Anticipatory Bail | Orissa HC (2021)

Home
Orissa HC
2021
Shadab Alam Vs State of OdishaShadab Alam v. State of Odisha

Dismissed

Shadab Alam v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC6 Sept 2021ABLAPL/8555/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail petition apprehending arrest under IPC Sections 120-B, 419, 420 and I.T. Act Sections 66(C), 66(D), the High Court of Orissa rejected the prayer for pre-arrest bail. The Court found the petitioner involved based on the co-accused's confession and highlighted the need for custodial interrogation in this cyber crime case.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's prayer for pre-arrest bail is rejected; petition is disposed of being dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petitioner's prayer for pre-arrest bail is rejected; petition is disposed of being dismissed.

Issue for consideration

Whether to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner alleging offences under Sections 120-B, 419, 420 of IPC and Sections 66(C), 66(D) of the I.T. Act. +2 more

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

The prayer for pre-arrest bail under Sections 120-B, 419, 420 of IPC and Sections 66(C), 66(D) of the I.T. Act is dismissed. The Court rejected the argument that the release of a co-accused entitled the petitioner to bail. Considering the serious nature of allegations, the incriminating materials, and the requirement of custodial interrogation for further evidence in cyber crime, the petitioner is not entitled to pre-arrest bail.

A compact analysis

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.

A

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

ABLAPL No.8555 of 2021

Shadab Alam.

Petitioner

-versus-

State of Odisha

…. Opposite Party

CORAM: JUSTICE S. PUJAHARI

ORDER

Order No.

06.09.2021

This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

The Petitioner apprehending his arrest in Belpahar P.S. Case No.44 of 2021, registered for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 419, 420 of IPC and Sections 66(C), 66(D) of the I.T. Act, has filed this petition for his release on pre-arrest bail.

Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the co-accused, on the basis of whose statement the present petitioner has been implicated in this case, has already been arrested and released on bail by the Court below, the present petitioner deserves to be released on pre-arrest bail.

Page 1 of 2

// 2 //

However, on perusal of the materials available on record, especially the confessional statement of the co-accused, the petitioner’s involvement is revealed. It is a case of cyber crime. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required for collection of further evidence.

Considering the aforesaid facts and submission made, especially the nature of accusation, character of incriminating materials appearing against the Petitioner, circumstances in which he has been indicted, seriousness of the offences alleged, this Court is not inclined to release the Petitioner on pre-arrest bail, notwithstanding the release of the co-accused on bail by the Court below.

Accordingly, the prayer for pre-arrest bail of the Petitioner stands rejected and the ABLAPL is disposed of being dismissed.

(S. Pujahari) Judge

MRS

Page 2 of 2

Issues for consideration

3 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner alleging offences under Sections 120-B, 419, 420 of IPC and Sections 66(C), 66(D) of the I.T. Act.
2.
Whether the release on bail of a co-accused entitles the present petitioner to be released on pre-arrest bail.
3.
Whether custodial interrogation is necessary for collecting further evidence in a cyber crime case.

Statutes considered

2 provisions across 2 enactments

AI extract

IPC120-B, 419, 420
I.T. Act66(C), 66(D)

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Shadab Alam
respondent
State of Odisha

Coram

AI extract

S. PUJAHARI

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Orissa HC
Decided on: 6 Sept 2021 · September
Registered: 14 Jul 2021
Case no.: ABLAPL/8555/2021
CNR: ODHC010429122021
Topic: Anticipatory Bail
Bench: S.pujahari
Disposal: Rejected

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from S.pujahari

Chintamani Nayak Vs State of Odisha
1 Sept 2021
Kabita Malik Vs State of Odisha
1 Sept 2021
Gourishankar Behera Vs State of Odisha
1 Sept 2021
Dukhiram Patel Vs State of Odisha
6 Sept 2021
Chaitanya Bariha Vs State of Odisha
6 Sept 2021
Pritilata Mallick Vs State of Odisha
6 Sept 2021

Cite this judgement

Shadab Alam v. State of Odisha, ABLAPL/8555/2021 (OD), decided on 6 September 2021.

The High Court of Orissa publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes2

IPC120-B, 419, 420
I.T. Act66(C), 66(D)

View all statutes

Bench / Coram

S. PUJAHARI

Parties & counsel