[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Bilash Chandra Raj vs State Of Orissa ... Opposite Party on 25 March, 2026
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.1250 of 2026
Bilash Chandra Raj ... Petitioner
Mr. R.K. Das, proxy counsel on behalf of
Mr. S.K. Das, Advocate
-versus-
State of Orissa ... Opposite Party
Mr. M.R. Patra, Addl. PP
CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
Order No. ORDER(ORAL) 25.03.2026
02. I.A. No.222 of 2026
1.
This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).
2. This is an application by the petitioner for grant
of interim bail on the ground of illness of his daughter.
3. Heard, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Das, learned proxy
counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Sujit Kumar Das,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.R. Patra,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor in the matter and
perused the record.
4. After having considered the rival submissions
and on going through the averments taken in the IA, it
appears that the petitioner wants to avail interim bail for
the treatment of his daughter for the disease
"Ventricular Septal Defect (VSD)", but it is candidly
admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the daughter of the petitioner is suffering from such
disease about four years ago and the patient is under
continuous medical management and medication. It is
also found from the written note of submission as
produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the said child was taken into hospital on 11.10.2025 and
24.11.2025, but the petitioner is in custody much before
the aforesaid dates and, therefore, it is very clear that
absence of the petitioner in his house is not causing any
hindrance for the treatment of the patient. Besides,
there appears not only serious allegation against the
petitioner, but also he is allegedly having involvement in
98 cases as per the impugned order of rejection of bail.
Further, the document as annexed by the petitioner in
this IA does not reveal about the exact procedure of the
treatment, nonetheless some medicine has been
prescribed to the patient for constant pain. In the
aforesaid facts and situation and taking into
consideration the alleged involvement of the petitioner in
other 98 cases and there being always risk of the
petitioner absconding, this Court does not consider it
proper to admit interim bail to the petitioner. The
petitioner is however, at liberty to approach the learned
trial Court for interim bail with appropriate document to
satisfy about the illness of her daughter and the
treatment required for her.
5. Hence, the prayer for interim bail to the
petitioner stands rejected. Accordingly, the I.A. stands
disposed of.
6. This is a bail application U/S.483 of the BNSS by
the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with CT
Case No. 1260 of 2024 arising out of Cyber Crime PS
Case No. 35 of 2024 pending in the Court of learned
SDJM, Bhubaneswar, Khurda 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 the IT Act, on the
main allegation of alluring the informant to invest in
different shares and stocks for high returns and in the
process, cheating a sum of Rs.30,02,267/- from the
Informant.
7. Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar Das, learned proxy
counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Sujit Kumar Das,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.R. Patra,
learned Addl. PP in the matter and perused the record.
8. After having considered the rival submission
upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against
the petitioner for cheating the informant through online
fraud by alluring him to invest money in different shares
and stocks. It is, however, claimed by the State that the
petitioner is the sole proprietor of LB Global Solutions
and 106 complaints have been received against the
account of the petitioner in terms of the National Cyber
Crime Reporting (NCRB) portal (now Samanvaya Portal)
which is designed by the Ministry of Home Affairs,
Government of India to register complaint against cyber
fraudster. Further, it is claimed that the account of the
petitioner was credited with Rs.12,38,64,853/-(Rupees
Twelve Crore Thirty Eight Lakh Sixty Four Thousand
Eight Hundred Fifty Three) from many beneficiaries
account and such amount has also been transferred
through NEFT and RTGS mode to many accounts.
Besides, the impugned order of rejection reveals that
the IO has submitted a report to the effect that 98
numbers of cases of similar nature have been instituted
against the petitioner and other persons involved in the
group throughout India to commit online fraud.
9. In such view of the matter and taking into
consideration the nature and gravity of the offences as
alleged against the petitioner vis-à-vis the allegation
sought to be brought against him and the materials
collected by the investigating agency and on a
cumulative consideration of circumstance involved in this
case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the
petitioner.
10. Hence, the bail application of the petitioner
stands rejected. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed
of. A soft copy of the order be immediately
communicated to the learned trial Court.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Jayakrushna
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
