Allowed

Md. Irshad @ Md. Irsad v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC24 Jul 2026BLAPL/3283/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three bail applications arising from a cyber-fraud mule-account case were allowed under Section 480(6) BNSS because the trial before the JMFC was not concluded within sixty days from the first date fixed for taking evidence, despite the accused being in custody throughout.

What did the court decide?

Each petitioner admitted to bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties, subject to co-operating with the trial.

Md. Irshad @ Md. Irsad Vs State of Odisha — Cheating and Forgery | Orissa HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL NOs.2779, 3283 & 3297 of 2026

¶2

(In the matter of applications under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023).

¶3

Mohammad Amir and another (In BLAPL No.2779 of 2026) Md. Irshad @ Md. Irsad (In BLAPL No.3283 of 2026) Lalit Kumar Sethy

¶4

(In BLAPL No.3297 of 2026) … Petitioners

¶5

Mr. A.R. Panda, Advocate (in BLAPL No.2779 of 2026) Mr. R.N. Rout, Advocate (in BLAPL No.3283 of 2026) Mr. P. Sahoo, proxy counsel on behalf of Mr. S.K. Pattnaik, Advocate (in BLAPL No.3297 of 2026)

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha

¶8

… Opposite Party Mr. R.B. Mishra, Addl. PP

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

¶10

DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:24.07.2026(ORAL)

¶11

G. Satapathy, J.

¶12

1. Since these three bail applications arise

¶13

out of one and same case record, the same are heard

¶14

together and disposed of by this common order with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

BLAPL No.2779, 3283 & 3297 of 2026 Page 1 of 5

¶16

2. These are the bail applications U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with Barbil PS Case No.57 of 2026 corresponding to GR Case No.214 of 2026 pending in the file of learned JMFC, Barbil, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.318(4)/336(3)/340/61(2)/ 112(2)/3(5) of BNS r/w Section 66(D) of IT Act, on the main allegation of opening up mule accounts in the name of the informant Niroj Kumar Sethy and handing over it to co-accused Ram Anuj Lal for facilitating cyber fraud.

¶17

3. Heard, Mr. Amulya Ratna Panda, learned counsel for the petitioners in BLAPL No.2779 of 2026; Mr. Rajendra Narayan Rout, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No.3283 of 2026; Mr. Prahallad Sahoo, learned proxy counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Susil Kumar Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No.3297 of 2026 and Mr. R.B. Mishra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in the matter and perused the record.

¶18

BLAPL No.2779, 3283 & 3297 of 2026 Page 2 of 5

¶19

4. Admittedly, the petitioners were in

¶20

custody since 23.02.2026, but the offences are triable by the Magistrate and in the meantime, one witness has already been examined. It appears from the evidence that the informant was examined on 11.05.2026, but in the meantime, more than two months have elapsed, however, the trial is yet to be concluded and, thereby, the petitioners are entitled to the relief U/S.480(6) of BNSS, which prescribes that if, in any case triable by a Magistrate, the trial of a person accused of any non-bailable offence is not concluded within a period of sixty days from the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case, such person shall, if he is in custody during the whole of the said period, be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Magistrate, unless for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Magistrate otherwise directs. No doubt, Section 480(6) confers discretion on the learned Magistrate, but such discretion stands on a different footing because of the word “shall” has been used in

¶21

BLAPL No.2779, 3283 & 3297 of 2026 Page 3 of 5

¶22

such Section and when liberty of a person is concerned, such word has to be interpreted liberally in favour of the accused. In view of the above facts and taking into account the mode and manner of implication of the present petitioners and keeping in view the provision of Section 480(6) of BNSS, this Court without expressing any view on merit, admits each of the petitioners to bail.

¶23

5. Hence, these three bail applications of the petitioners namely Mohammad Amir and Ramanuj Lal (In BLAPL No.2779 of 2026); Md. Irshad @ Md. Irsad (In BLAPL No.3283 of 2026) and Lalit Kumar Sethy (In BLAPL No.3297 of 2026) are allowed and each of the petitioners is allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin of the case on such terms and conditions as deem fit and proper by it with following conditions:-

¶24

BLAPL No.2779, 3283 & 3297 of 2026 Page 4 of 5

¶25

(i) the petitioners shall co-operate the trial.

¶26

6. Accordingly, these BLAPLs stand disposed

¶27

of. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules. A soft copy of this order be immediately communicated to the concerned Court, who shall afterwards communicate the same to the concerned Jail through e-mail for reference.

¶28

(G. Satapathy) Judge

¶29

Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 24^th day of July, 2026/Subhasmita

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

BLAPL No.2779, 3283 & 3297 of 2026 Page 5 of 5

¶32

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASMITA DAS Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 24-Jul-2026 19:28:04

Md. Irshad @ Md. Irsad v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Irshad @ Md. Irsad v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akshya Mahananda @ Akshaya Mahananda Vs State of Odisha

Pinku Majhi Vs State of Odisha

Sek @ Sk. Imran @ Sk. Japan @ Impran Vs State of Odisha

Manoj Kumar Mahanta Vs State of Odisha

Shikandar Jamuda @ Sikandar Jamuda @ Jamda Vs State of Odisha

Kusana Patra Suna @ Kishore Patra Suna Vs State of Odisha