The High Court
Case Details
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. BLAPL No.1039 of 2025 Page 1 of 11 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 BLAPL No.1039 of 2025 Page 2 of 11 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.
Legal Reasoning
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 BLAPL No.1039 of 2025 Page 3 of 11 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 BLAPL No.1039 of 2025 Page 4 of 11 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 BLAPL No.1039 of 2025 Page 5 of 11 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 BLAPL No.1039 of 2025 Page 6 of 11 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. 2. 3. Hajipur Sadar P.S. Case no. 730/2024 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 5922/2024 pending in the court of Ld. C.J.M. Vaishali at Hajipur. Arambagh P.S. Case No.441/2024 dated 02.08.2024. Vedant Nagar P.S. Case No.33/2025 dated 19.02.2025. Sec. 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472 and 120-B IPC read with Sec. 3 of Bihar Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 2002. Bail allowed via order dated 20.03.2025 passed by Ld. C.J.M., Vaishali at Hajipur. Sec. 419, 420, 421, 406 IPC. Bail allowed. Sec. 120-B, 34, 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC read with Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Bail pending before Hon’ble High Court of Bombay. BLAPL No.1039 of 2025 Page 7 of 11 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Surat City DCB P.S. Case No.69/2024 dated 30.07.2024. Arambagh P.S. Case No.227/2024 dated 01.05.2024. Arambagh P.S. Case No.426/2023 dated 09.12.2023. Arambagh P.S. Case No.179/2024 dated 09.04.2024. Bihar Kishanganj P.S. Case No.162/2023. Establishments) Act, 1999. Sec. 409, 420, 120-B, 34 IPC read with Sec. 3 of Gujarat Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 2003. Sec. 420, 406, 120-B IPC. Sec. 420, 406, 506, 34 IPC. Sec. 302, 120-B IPC. Sec. 419, 420 IPC read with Sec. 30(a), 32, 41, 47 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. Bail allowed via order dated 24.12.2024 passed by Ld. Sessions Judge, Surat. Bail allowed via order dated 02.12.2024 passed by Addl. C.J.M., Arambagh. Bail allowed via order dated 17.01.2025 passed by Addl. C.J.M., Arambagh. Bail allowed via order dated 16.12.2024 passed by Addl. C.J.M., Arambagh. Bail allowed via order dated 24.05.2023 passed by Hon’ble High Court of Patna. 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:- BLAPL No.1039 of 2025 Page 8 of 11 “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 repeated; of the offence being (vii) Reasonable apprehension of witnesses being influenced; and the (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 BLAPL No.1039 of 2025 Page 9 of 11 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. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstance and taking into account the materials placed on record and on going through it and keeping in view the colossal sum involved in cheating numbers of investors, this Court does not find any good ground to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. BLAPL No.1039 of 2025 Page 10 of 11 7. Hence, the bail application of the petitioner
Decision
stands rejected. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. (G. Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 22nd day of October, 2025/Subhasmita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASMITA DAS Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 24-Oct-2025 18:55:18 BLAPL No.1039 of 2025 Page 11 of 11