Petitioner applied for bail under S. 439 Cr.P.C. in a fraud case involving cheating for over Rs. 2.4 crores. The court rejected bail due to the economic nature of the offence, gravity of accusations, trial commencement, and risk of absconding.
Prayer for bail rejected; trial to be expedited.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.5193 of 2022
Himanshu Bhandari
…. Petitioner Mr. A. Mishra , Advocate
-versus-
State of Orissa
…. Opp. Party Mr. S.S. Pradhan, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
ORDER
Order No.
09.12.2022
// 2 //
Rs.63,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty Three Lakhs) has been transferred to the account of the present petitioner, but at present situation, the petitioner is not in a position to return the aforesaid amount to the informant and, thereby, the petitioner may kindly be granted bail by taking appropriate surety, so that he can arrange the money to return it to the informant. It is also submitted by him that the petitioner cannot furnish cash surety or property surety. On the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to release the petitioner on bail.
// 3 //
Subhasmita
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted in an economic fraud case involving cheating of large sums where the trial has commenced.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail given the gravity of the accusations and risk of absconding.
Whether cash surety or property surety condition was satisfied given the petitioner's inability to return the defrauded amount.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Himanshu Bhandari
State of Orissa
G. Satapathy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
