Disposed¶23

Sk Jamir Uddin v. State of Odisha

Bail condition – modification

Orissa HC9 Jun 2025BLAPL/2887/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sk Jamir Uddin v. State of Odisha, BLAPL No.2887 of 2025, I.A. No.1061 of 2025, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, decided 18.11.2025 by Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra. Bail condition modification: Court holds inability to furnish a bank guarantee should not deny bail; reduces bank guarantee from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.50,000/-; all other bail conditions intact; petitioner a driver whose account money was withdrawn by principal account holder; State opposed modification citing seriousness of offence.

What did the court decide?

Modification of bail condition granted: bank guarantee requirement reduced from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.50,000/-, with all other conditions remaining intact; I.A. disposed of accordingly. ¶23

Sk Jamir Uddin Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.2887 of 2025

Sk Jamir Uddin

.....

Petitioner

Represented By Adv. - Pradeep Kumar Panda

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State Of Odisha

¶8

..... Opposite Party

¶9

Represented By Adv. – S.K. Parhi, A.S.C.

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ORDER

18.11.2025

Order No.

03.

I.A. No.1061 of 2025

¶17

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

¶18

This I.A has been filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner seeking modification of order dated 09.06.2025.

¶19

Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that although the Petitioner was released on bail vide order dated 09.06.2025, however, such release was subject to Petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs). He further submitted that since the Petitioner is unable to pay the bank guarantee, he is languishing in jail custody despite of the fact that he was released on bail vide order dated 09.06.2025. He further contended that the Petitioner is a driver and that the money has been withdrawn by the principal account from his account.

¶20

Page 1 of 2.

¶21

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand objected to the modification on the ground that the offence alleged is serious in nature.

¶22

Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, taking into consideration the fact that the Petitioner is languishing in custody as he was unable to deposit the bank guarantee imposed by this court, this Court is of the considered view that the person should not be denied bail on the ground that he is unable to furnish any bank guarantee. Further, keeping in view the seriousness and gravity of the allegation, this Court modifies the condition with regard to furnishing of the bank guarantee as has been mentioned in para-XXII to the tune that the Petitioner shall now furnish bank guarantee to the tune of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand) instead of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs). All other conditions shall remain intact.

¶23

6. Accordingly, the I.A. is disposed of.

¶24

( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge

¶25

Anil

¶26

Signature Not Verified Page 2 of 2.

¶27

Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 19-Nov-2025 15:21:57

Sk Jamir Uddin v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sk Jamir Uddin v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Rajesh Reddy Vs State of Odisha

Hemant Kumar Mohapatra Vs State of Odisha

Dambarudhar Mohanta Vs State of Odisha

Ramesh Vs State of Odisha

Aasif Quereshi Vs State of Odisha

Sankar Raj P Vs State of Odisha