[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Subharun Das vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite Party on 11 March, 2026
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL NO.696 of 2026
(In the matter of application under Section 483 of
BNSS, 2023).
Subharun Das ... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha ... Opposite Party
For Petitioner : Mr. S.C. Mohapatra, Sr.
Advocate along with Mr. S.
Mohapatra, Advocate
For Opposite Party : Mr. T.K. Acharya, Addl. PP
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:11.03.2026(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 CID CB
Cyber PS Case No.21 of 2024 corresponding to GR Case
No.395 of 2024 pending in the file of learned JMFC (UTP),
Cuttack, for commission of offences punishable
U/Ss.419/420/465/467/468/471/120-B/34 of IPC r/w
Sections 66(C)/66(D) of IT Act, on the main allegation of
cheating the gullible investors by alluring them to invest
online in the fictitious company like TECHSTARS PRO with
the advice of a WhatsApp group created by him & others
in the name of "Ram Investment Academy" and in the
process, cheating the informant for a sum of
Rs.2,58,60,000/-.
2. Heard, Mr. Soura Chandra Mohapatra,
learned Senior Counsel, who is being assisted by Mr. S.
Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.
T.K. Acharya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in the
matter and perused the record.
3. Bail to the petitioner is mainly sought for on
three following grounds; such as (i) non-conclusion of
trial in terms of Section 480(6) of BNSS, (ii) illness of
mother of the petitioner and (iii) on merit, but this Court
at the inception takes the first plea of the petitioner for
consideration of bail in exercise of power U/S.480(6) of
BNSS, which provides for as under:-
"480(6)BNSS. If, 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."
4. On a plain reading of the aforesaid provision
makes it apparently clear that the aforesaid provision
mandates that in case of a non-bailable offence which is
being tried by the Magistrate and the trial has not been
concluded within a period of sixty days from the first date
fixed for taking evidence in the case and the accused has
remained in custody during whole of the said period, he
becomes eligible to be released on bail, however, the
Magistrate can still decline the benefit of the aforesaid
provision to the accused by recording reason in writing.
The legal issue that arise for consideration is whether
Section 480(6) of BNSS gives an absolute right to the
accused to seek bail, if the conditions stipulated therein
stands fulfilled or still there is discretion at the hand of
Magistrate, but on a careful consideration of the aforesaid
provision, it is apparently clear that this provision on one
hand enables the Magistrate to grant bail, if the
requirement of Section 480(6) of BNSS stands fulfilled,
whereas on the other hand, it vests a discretion at the
hand of the Magistrate to decline bail to an accused for
the reasons to be recorded in writing. In the sequence of
such legal position, this Court considers that the
Magistrate is required to strike a balance between two
conflict interests, such as sanctity of the personal liberty
and in the interest of justice, but this Court, however,
notes a word of caution that the provision of Section
480(6) of BNSS have to be construed strictly in favour of
the personal liberty, otherwise declining bail even the
accused fulfills the conditions of Section 480(6) of BNSS
on the grounds which are considered to be relevant in
normal circumstance would be considered doing violence
to the provision to the statute, inasmuch as refusing bail
by merely importing some words on normal grounds
would result in defeating the very object of the aforesaid
provision, which would otherwise render the provision to
a mere dead letter.
5. No doubt, Section 480(6) of BNSS does not
confer the accused an absolute right to seek bail, but the
provision does confer some right, however, not an
indefeasible right as provided in Sec.187(3) of BNSS. In
striking a balance in the aforesaid circumstances for
dealing an application U/S.480(6) of BNSS, the Court has
to keep in mind the very object of such provision, which
is aimed to provide speedy trial to an accused, more
particularly when he is detained in jail, which stems from
Article 21 of the Constitution of India and dealing such
situation, the Magistrate is expected to keep in mind (i)
the gravity of the offence(s), (ii) the quantum of
punishment, (iii) the manner in which the accused is
involved in the offence(s), (iv) whether the default is
attributed to the accused in prison and (v) the likelihood
of accused jumping the bail and any other special
circumstance which is considered to be expedient not to
exercise discretion as provided U/S.480(6) of BNSS. It is,
however, concluded that the right as conferred
U/S.480(6) of BNSS is not an absolute right, however,
nonetheless it is a right which cannot be defeated in
routine manner.
6. Applying and testing the facts of the case on
the backdrop of the principles as stated above, there
appears allegation against the petitioner for cheating the
informant by alluring him to invest in different fictitious
companies and the total amount of cheating of the
informant appears to a sum of Rs.2,58,60,000/- and
some part of the money has allegedly been transferred to
the account of the petitioner, who allegedly transferred
the money to different accounts through RTGS and IMPS
and 18 complaints have been raised against the bank
account of the petitioner for fraudulent transaction in all
over India. Right now, the trial is going on with
examination of last witness i.e. PW6 whose evidence is
continuing as on 24.12.2025, but in the meantime,
examination of the said witness might have been
completed. Further, the learned trial Court has expressed
reasonable apprehension to say that the petitioner may
abscond, if released on bail. Besides, the petitioner has
not challenged the order passed by the learned trial Court
U/S. 480(6) of BNSS in any revision, however, the
reasoning as given by the learned trial Court while
refusing to grant bail to the petitioner cannot be
considered to be unsustainable at this stage. Hence, the
plea of the petitioner for bail U/S. 480(6) of BNSS merits
no consideration.
7. On coming back to the next issue of grant of
bail to the petitioner for attending his ailing mother, it
appears that no reliable document has been produced to
show the ailment of the mother of the petitioner and
nothing has been brought to the knowledge of the Court
to say that the treatment of the mother of the petitioner
is not possible in the absence of the petitioner. In the
aforesaid situation, this Court hardly finds any merit in
the plea of illness of mother of the petitioner for grant of
bail to him. In the aforesaid situation and taking into
account the plea as advanced by the petitioner being not
able to convince the Court and the trial being likely to be
concluded in near future, this Court does not find any
other ground to grant bail to the petitioner.
8. Hence, the bail application of the petitioner
stands rejected. The learned trial Court is, however,
requested to conclude the trial as expeditiously as
possible preferably within a period of three months
hence, failing which it is open to the petitioner to renew
his prayer for bail.
9. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. A
copy of this order be immediately transmitted to the
learned Court in seisin over the matter.
Signed by: SUBHASMITA DAS Judge
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 12-Mar-2026 19:26:34
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 11th day of March, 2026/Subhasmita
