Odisha High Court grants bail to 23 Accused in Multi Crores trading scam.

Orissa High Court

Unknown vs State Of Orissa ... Opposite Party on 10 July, 2025


Author: G. Satapathy

Bench: G. Satapathy

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

Sanjay Kumar Sharma.                                    
(In BLAPL No.6362 of 2025) 

Muhammed Nafee                                           
(In BLAPL No.6455 of 2025) 

Muhamed Muhsim & Ors.                               
(In BLAPL No.6625 of 2025)       
                                                                                                                            ...            Petitioners 

 Mr. B.C. Patra, Advocate 
 (in BLAPL No.6362 of 2025) 

 Mr. S.R. Rout, Advocate 
 (in BLAPL Nos.6455 & 6625 of 2025) 

 -versus- 
 State of Orissa 
 ... Opposite Party 
Mr. A. Pradhan, Addl. PP 

CORAM:
 JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
ORDER(ORAL)

10.07.2025 Order No.

01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).

2. This is the application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioners for the grant of bail in connection with Cyber Crime PS Case No.48 of 2024 arising out of GR Case No.1316 of 2024 pending in the Court of learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Angul for commission of offences punishable under U/Ss. 111/ 318(4)/ 391(2)/ 336(2)(3)/ 338/ 340(2)/ 61(2)/ 3(5) of IT Act.

3. The factual matrix of this case is that one Kuntal Majumdar lodged an FIR stating therein that he was automatically added in a Whatsapp group namely KOTAK Investment Club by the Admin having mobile no+(617)2594164 and believing the investment company name to be Genuine, he (informant) continued in the Whatsapp group and took interest in the activities of that group and, thereafter, he contacted the Assistant Admin namely Evelyn Smith with a request to allow him for trading and the above named Evelyn Smith asked Aadhar Card & Bank Account number etc. and consequently, enrolled the informant for trading and in the way the informant purchased the share to the tune of Rs.4.82 Crores out of his entire retirement corpus and such shares started at Rs.110/- and the fund of the informant immediately jumped to Rs.25 crores, but when the informant wanted to withdraw the funds, he was asked to deposit 75% of service fee @ 20% profit and total of such amount comes to 3.5 Crores and then, the informant arranged some money and requested the Admin to allow him to withdraw, but he was again informed that he can withdraw up-to Rs.23 Crores because of some congestions, but subject to condition that he has to deposit an amount equal to 1% of the withdrawal amount i.e. Rs.23 Lakhs, but such amount was immediately deposited by the informant with a request to permit withdrawal. However, when the informant attempted to withdraw the amount, he could not succeed in his attempt, and eventually, he was removed from the group by the Admin, and the App that was used by the informant was deactivated. Finally, the informant realised that he had been cheated to the tune of 6.28 Crores. In the course of the investigation, the involvements of the present petitioners were unearthed.

4. In the course of hearing Mr. Baishnab Charan Patra, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No.6362 of 2025 appearing virtually while inviting attention of the court to the order passed by a coordinate Bench in BLAPL No.13070 of 2024 granting bail to co-accused persons, submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as cash surety for his release on bail and when co-accused has already been granted bail, there would not be any impediment to grant bail to the petitioners in view of his own volition to deposit Rs.1,00,000/- as cash surety. Accordingly, Mr. Baishnab Charan Patra prays to grant bail on such condition.

4.1 Similarly, Mr. Smruti Ranjan Rout, learned counsel for the petitioners in BLAPL Nos. 6455 & 6625 of 2025 submits that the petitioners, Muhammed Nafee is ready and willing to pay Rs.50,000/- as cash surety, whereas the petitioner, Muhamed Muhsim, is ready and willing to deposit Rs.. 1,00,000/- as cash surety and petitioner, Mubajil N M and Farshad Yasin U. are ready and willing to deposit Rs.. 50,000/- each as cash surety as a condition for grant of bail to them.

4.2. On the other hand, Mr. A. Pradhan, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, however, strongly opposes the bail application of the petitioners, but he did not dispute about grant of bail to twenty-two co-accused persons.


5. It is not in dispute that around twenty-two co-accused persons have already been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court in different bail applications by ordering to furnish cash surety or bank guarantee. The petitioners have been in custody since 30.10.2024 and 01.11.2024, and in the meantime, a preliminary charge sheet has already been submitted. It is undoubtedly true that the petitioners have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. 

7. In view of the above facts and having considered the rival submissions and on going through the material placed on record and keeping in view the grant of bail to a number of co-accused persons and regard being had to the role as alleged against the petitioners, this Court, without expressing any view on merit, admits each of the petitioners to bail.

6. Hence, these three bail applications of the petitioners stand allowed, and each of the petitioners is allowed to go on bail on the following conditions:-

(i) So far as the petitioner in BLAPL No.6362 of 2025 is concerned, he (petitioner Sanjaya Kumar Sharma) shall be released on bail on furnishing cash surety of Rs.. 1,00,000/, in addition to bail bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court in seisin over the matter.

(ii) So far as the petitioner in BLAPL No.6455 of 2025 is concerned, he (petitioner- Muhammed Nafee) shall be released on bail on furnishing cash surety of Rs.50,000/-, in addition to bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court in seisin over the matter.

(iii) So far as the petitioners in BLAPL No.6625 of 2025 is concerned, the petitioners- Muhammed Muhsim, Mubajil N M and Farshad Yasin U shall be released on bail on furnishing cash surety of Rs. 1,00,000/-, Rs. 50,000 and Rs 50,000 respectively, in addition to bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court in seisin over the matter.

(iv) the petitioners shall not commit any offence while on bail,

(v) The petitioners in the course of trial shall attend the trial Court on each date of posting without fail unless their attendance is dispensed with. In case the Petitioner fails without sufficient cause to appear in the Court in accordance with the terms of the bail, the learned trial Court may proceed against the Petitioner for the offence U/S.269 of BNS,2023 in accordance with law.

(vi) the petitioners shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission till the disposal of the case by intimating their present address of stay to the concerned Court and

(vii) The petitioners shall report attendance before the Jurisdictional Police Station once in a fortnight, preferably on a Sunday in each month in between 10 A.M. to 12 Noon for six (06) months from the actual date of release from the custody.

The I.I.C. of Jurisdictional Police Station shall not detain the petitioners unnecessarily after recording their attendance beyond the time as stipulated.

It is clarified that the Court in seisin of the case will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the petitioner without further reference to this Court, if any of the above conditions are violated or a case for cancellation of bail is otherwise made out. In the wake of the aforesaid, the subsequent involvement of the petitioner in future for similar/grave offences on prima facie accusations may be treated as a ground for cancellation of bail in this case.

6. Accordingly, the BLAPLs stand disposed of. 

7. Issue an urgent certified copy of the order as per the rules. 

(G. Satapathy) Judge Jayakrushna Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack



Location: Cuttack, Odisha, India

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Bihar Cyber Probe Under Fire: Patna High Court Grants Bails in 'BOSS Group' Case, Highlights Police Overreach and Crypto Legality

Motihari, Bihar, October 28, 2025 – The unraveling of the so-called "BOSS Group" cyber fraud investigation in Motihari has exposed deep fissures in Bihar Police's handling of digital crimes, with allegations of procedural violations, media-orchestrated trials, and unwarranted targeting of minors and families dominating the narrative. Registered as FIR No. 92/2025 at the Motihari cyber police station, the case—initially hailed as a bust of an organized syndicate—has seen the Patna High Court and local sessions courts grant anticipatory and regular bails to most peripheral accused, citing a "disturbing tendency" to expand conspiracy charges without evidence. At its core, this episode underscores systemic misconduct: hasty raids justified by fame rather than facts, unrecorded confessions prone to tampering, and a cavalier disregard for juvenile protections, echoing Bihar's chequered history of investigative lapses in cyber probes. The probe originated from a J...
Read more

Accused recieved ₹5,00,000 from ₹1,33,50,000 got Bail from (Punjab And Haryana High Court) on Digital Arrest and Cyber Fraud Case.

  Anoop Alias Anup Vs State of Haryana (Punjab And Haryana High Court) The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to Anoop alias Anup, a petitioner in a high-profile cybercrime case involving a “digital arrest” scam. The court’s decision was based on the petitioner’s six-month and 14-day pre-trial custody period, as well as the principle that pre-trial incarceration should not be a form of punishment. While acknowledging the serious nature of the allegations, the court concluded there was no justification for the petitioner’s continued detention at this stage.  The case stems from an FIR registered on November 27, 2024, at the Cyber Crime Hansi Police Station in Haryana, under various sections of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The complainant, a 78-year-old advocate named Raj Kumar Vats, submitted a written application, alleging that he had been the victim of online fraud. The details of the scam reveal a sophisticated and multi-layered deception...
Read more