Orissa High Court

Saiyad Jiyahjur Rahaman vs State Of Odisha (Opid) ... Opposite ... on 22 October, 2025

Author: G. Satapathy

Bench: G. Satapathy

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                    BLAPL NO.1039 of 2025

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

    Saiyad Jiyahjur Rahaman                   ...         Petitioner
                                 -versus-

    State of Odisha (OPID)                    ...    Opposite Party

    For Petitioner               : Mr. D. Nayak, Sr. Advocate
                                   along with Mr. M. Dhir,
                                   Advocate

    For Opposite Party           : Mr. A.K. Nayak, Advocate
                                   (OPID)
                                   Mr. A.K. Mohanty,
                                   Advocate (for Informant)

          CORAM:
                    JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

     DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:22.10.2025(ORAL)

G. Satapathy, J.

1. This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the

petitioner for grant of bail in connection with EOW

Bhubaneswar PS Case No.7 of 2024 corresponding to CT

Case No.17 of 2024 pending in the file of learned Presiding

Officer, Designated Court under OPID Act, Cuttack, for

commission of offences punishable U/Ss.406/ 420/ 467/

468/ 471/ 120-B of IPC r/w Section 6 of OPID Act.

2. The facts given rise to this bail application are

that the petitioner-Saiyad Jiyahjur Rahaman being the CEO

of M/s. LFS Broking Pvt. Ltd., a partner of MOL Group,

Kolkata has floated different schemes and allured investors

to invest money on the guarantee of high returns and it is

alleged that during June, 2022, LFS Broking & PMS Service

and its sister concerns namely LFS Broking Pvt. Ltd. enters

into share market trading and gold business and allured the

investors by floating an advertisement of various lucrative

schemes including 2% monthly interest on the investment of

minimum Rs.25,000/- till the final withdrawal of the invested

amount. Accordingly, the informant namely Arun Kumar

Pattanayak invested Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five

Thousand) on 25.06.2022 with LFS Broking & PMS Service

and got Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) every month which

is equivalent to 2% on the invested amount and being

encouraged, the informant further invested Rs.6.75 Lakhs

and received Rs.14,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Thousand) on

23.06.2023 as return for one month only and after which, he

did not receive anymore. In the process, the aforesaid

Companies had secured investment for near about

Rs.9,55,52,138/- (Rupees Nine Crores Fifty-five Lakhs Fifty-

two Thousand One Hundred Thirty-eight) from 124 numbers

of investors by paying the investors the promised returns

and interests for three months or even for one month and

after collecting such a huge amount from the general public,

the Companies stopped making any further payment. In the

course of investigation, the involvement of the petitioner

prima facie being found, he was taken into custody by

Economic Offence Wing (EOW). The petitioner being

unsuccessful in approaching the Presiding Officer,

Designated Court under OPID Act, Cuttack is before this

Court in this bail application.

3. In the course of hearing, Mr. D. Nayak, learned

Senior Counsel, who is being assisted by Mr. Manish Dhir,

learned counsel for the petitioner very emphatically submits

that even if the materials collected in the course of

investigation are taken into consideration, the petitioner

having not completely cheated anybody has paid some

amount and he has got intention to clear up the investment

of all the investors, but how long a person can be detained

in custody pending trial, when he is ready to return the

investment with some breathing time and although the

petitioner has been found involved in some cases in different

States, but he having been granted bail in most of the cases,

his detention in this case would not serve any fruitful

purpose. It is further submitted by Mr. Nayak that the

petitioner is in custody for last one year and in the

meantime, charge-sheet has already been submitted, but

the allegation against the petitioner is for misappropriation

for a sum of Rs.9,55,52,138/- (Rupees Nine Crores Fifty-five

Lakhs Fifty-two Thousand One Hundred Thirty-eight),

however, the pre trial detention of the petitioner amounts to

his punishment before trial and, therefore, the principle

being, no person shall be made to suffer sentence until

proven guilty at the trial, the petitioner may kindly be

granted bail. It is, however, submitted by Mr. Nayak that all

the evidence relating to this case being documentary in

nature, which has been seized and the petitioner having no

capacity to tamper the prosecution materials and he having

satisfied the Tripod Test, there is no impediment to grant

bail to the petitioner. Mr. Nayak in responding to the query

of the Court with regard to arrest of the accused through

Look Out Circular submits that by imposing appropriate

condition to direct the petitioner to submit his passport, he

can be released on bail. In summing up his argument, Mr.

Nayak by relying upon the decision in Anupam Pradhan

Vrs. State of Orissa (OPID) in BLAPL No.10379 of

2023, disposed of on 19.03.2024 and Ripan Kumar

Jena Vrs. State of Orissa (OPID) in BLAPL No.10329 of

2023, disposed of on 21.02.2024 submits that the

present case is in fact akin to the facts of the relied on cases

and the petitioner having no flight risk and he being not in a

position to tamper with the prosecution evidence or witness,

there would not be any further impediment to grant bail to

the petitioner. Accordingly, Mr. Nayak, learned Senior

Counsel prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

3.1. On the other hand, Mr. Anil Kumar Nayak,

learned counsel appearing of the OPID while opposing the

prayer for bail of the petitioner submits in vehemence that

not only the petitioner has collected Rs.9 Crores and some

odd amount from the State of Orissa, but he is prima facie

involved in a scam of Rs.266 Crores in the entire country

and he being involved in criminal cases of similar nature in

different States of India, he does not deserve to be released

on bail. Mr. Nayak also submits that since the petitioner

being arrested after issuance of Look Out Notice, his

released on bail would definitely give him the laxity to flee

away from the country. Accordingly, Mr. Nayak prays to

reject the bail application of the petitioner.

3.2. On the other hand, Mr. A.K. Mohanty, learned

counsel appearing for the informant very emphatically

submits that the petitioner is involved in a scam of Rs.2,000

Crores and he being a citizen of Bangladesh, there is every

possibility that the petitioner would abscond from the

country after his release on bail.

4. After having considered the rival submissions

upon perusal of record, there appears not only allegation

against the petitioner for cheating the innocent investors for

a colossal sum of Rs.9,55,52,138/- (Rupees Nine Crores

Fifty-five Lakhs Fifty-two Thousand One Hundred Thirty-

eight) by way of fraud as per the charge-sheet, but also it is

found from the said charge-sheet that a sum of Rs.30.04

Crores has subsequently transferred to Account Nos.

50100102233710, 50200028458092 and 59208348789850

maintained with HDFC Bank in the name of the petitioner. It

is also stated in such charge-sheet that the petitioner was

arrested after his return from Dubai (UAE) pursuant to Look

Out Circular(LOC), when he was detained by AFRRO-A,

Bureau of Immigration NSCBI Airport, Kolkata. Besides, it is

not disputed that the petitioner is in fact involved in 8

criminal cases in different States like Bihar, West Bengal,

Maharashtra and Gujurat for commission of offences, which

are more or less for similar type of offences as alleged

against him in the present case except one case i.e.

Arambagh PS Case No.179 of 2024, which is for commission

of offence punishable U/Ss.302/120-B of IPC. The details of

the antecedents of the petitioner are as follows:-

S.No. Case Details Offences Status

1. Hajipur Sadar P.S. Sec. 406, 420, 467, 468, Bail allowed via order Case no. 730/2024 471, 472 and 120-B IPC dated 20.03.2025 corresponding to read with Sec. 3 of Bihar passed by Ld. C.J.M., G.R. Case No. Protection of Interest of Vaishali at Hajipur. 5922/2024 pending Depositors (In Financial in the court of Ld. Establishments) Act, C.J.M. Vaishali at 2002.

Hajipur.

2. Arambagh P.S. Case Sec. 419, 420, 421, Bail allowed.

No.441/2024 dated 406 IPC.

02.08.2024.

3. Vedant Nagar P.S. Sec. 120-B, 34, 406, 409, Bail pending before Case No.33/2025 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC Hon'ble High Court of dated 19.02.2025. read with Maharashtra Bombay.

Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial

Establishments) Act, 1999.

4. Surat City DCB P.S. Sec. 409, 420, 120-B, 34 Bail allowed via order Case No.69/2024 IPC read with Sec. 3 of dated 24.12.2024 dated 30.07.2024. Gujarat Protection of passed by Ld. Interest of Depositors (In Sessions Judge, Financial Establishments) Surat.

Act, 2003.

5. Arambagh P.S. Case Sec. 420, 406, 120-B Bail allowed via order No.227/2024 dated IPC. dated 02.12.2024 01.05.2024. passed by Addl. C.J.M., Arambagh.

6. Arambagh P.S. Sec. 420, 406, 506, 34 Bail allowed via order Case No.426/2023 IPC. dated 17.01.2025 dated 09.12.2023. passed by Addl. C.J.M., Arambagh.

7. Arambagh P.S. Sec. 302, 120-B IPC. Bail allowed via order Case No.179/2024 dated 16.12.2024 dated 09.04.2024. passed by Addl. C.J.M., Arambagh.

8. Bihar Kishanganj P.S. Sec. 419, 420 IPC read Bail allowed via order Case No.162/2023. with Sec. 30(a), 32, 41, dated 24.05.2023 47 of the Bihar passed by Hon'ble Prohibition and Excise High Court of Patna. Act, 2016.

5. Indisputably, the statutory provisions of bail

confers wide discretion on the Court either to grant or refuse

bail to the applicant, but such exercise of discretion should

not be arbitrary or de hors the basic principles laid down by

different constitutional Courts in a catena of decision. The

parameters under which the discretion has to be considered

has been elucidated by the Apex Court in the decision relied

on by the informant in the case of Prasanta Kumar Sarkar

Vrs. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr : (2010) 14 SCC 496,

wherein the Apex Court in Paragraph 9 has held as under:-

"9. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:

(i) Whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the Accused had committed the offence;

(ii) Nature and gravity of the accusation;

(iii) Severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;

(iv) Danger of the Accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;

(v) Character, behavior, means, position and standing of the Accused;

(vi)Likelihood of the offence being repeated;

(vii) Reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and

(viii) Danger of course of justice being thwarted by grant of bail."

On applying the aforesaid principles, it may be true that the

petitioner might have been granted bail in some of the cases

referred to above as submitted, but while considering the

bail application the factors relating to criminal antecedents

have to be taken into consideration because one of the

important aspects of granting bail is to see the likelihood of

repetition of commission of offences, but the checkered

criminal history of the petitioner itself reasonably gives rise

to an apprehension of repetition of commission of offences

by the petitioner himself. No doubt, this Court has granted

bail to Anupam Pradhan and Ripan Kumar Jena in those

relied on cases, but the facts in those cases are not similar

to the present case inasmuch as the petitioners therein have

not been arrested pursuant to Look Out Circular issued

against them, but the petitioner in this case has been

arrested pursuant to the Look Out Circular issued. One of

the important considerations in granting bail to an accused

in a criminal case is his conduct in appearing at the trial, but

the apprehension of the petitioner after issuance of Look Out

Circular itself demonstrates that the conduct of the

petitioner does not justify his release on bail.