KHIROD KUMAR NAYAK Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a bail application U/S.483 of the BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with CID(CB) Cyber Crime PS Case No. 58 of 2024 corresponding to GR Case No.903 of 2024 pending in the Court of learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack for commission of offences punishable U/Ss. 409/419/420/467/468/471/120-B/34 of IPC r/w Ss. 66/66C/66(B) of the IT Act, on the main allegation of securing an overdraft loan of Rs.2.25 Crores fraudulently against the fixed deposit of Rs.2.5Crores made by the Informant and transferring the said amount to bank account of his sister and thereafter, transferring it to different accounts through multiple transactions by obtaining the signatures of the Informant surreptitiously on different documents and in the process, cheating her by committing online fraud.

(2.) In the course of hearing, Mr. Alok Kumar Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, very politely submits that the petitioner is renewing his prayer for bail since investigation is not complete and it has been kept open and thereby, the petitioner having been detained in custody for more than the statutory period 120 days as contemplated U/S.167(2) CrPC/187(3) of BNSS, is entitled to default bail. Mr. Das also submits that since the petitioner is a family man having dependent children and already been confined for some days, the prayer of the petitioner for bail may kindly be considered positively.

(3.) After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of records, there appears allegation against the petitioner for securing an overdraft loan of Rs.2.25 Crores fraudulently against the fixed deposit of Rs.2.5 Crores made by the informant and transferring the said amount to bank account of his sister and thereafter, transferring it to different accounts through multiple transactions by obtaining signatures of the informant surreptitiously on different documents and in the process committing online fraud. The allegation against the petitioner is not only grave, but also serious. It is also not in dispute that the bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected by this Court on 3/7/2025, but there is no real change in circumstance in the meantime to consider the bail application of the petitioner afresh on merit.