Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

 The petitioner filed a bail application being BLAPL No.1063 of 2019 before this Court.

 This Court granted bail on 15.05.2019, with the condition to furnish cash security of ₹1,00,000/-.

 Due to financial constraints, the petitioner filed I.A. No.64/2020 for modification of bail conditions.

 On 12.02.2020, this Court although reduced the cash security to ₹40,000/-, but the petitioner was still unable to arrange the amount and remained in custody.

 The petitioner filed a bail application being BLAPL No.1951 of 2019 before this Court.

 This Court granted bail on 11.09.2019, with the condition to furnish cash security of ₹5,00,000/-.

 The petitioner filed I.A. No.62/2020 for modification of bail conditions.

 On 06.02.2020, this Court although reduced the cash security to ₹2,00,000/-, but the petitioner was still unable to arrange the amount and remained in custody.

An FIR lodged by the informant, Smt. Kabita Mohanty, a 47 year-old resident of Mahanadi Vihar. She alleged that the petitioner, representing M/s. Satyam Sai Infratech Real Estate, fraudulently convinced her to pay Rs.1,70,000/- for a land transaction that never materialized. After facing delays and discovering that the petitioner had no actual land to offer, she realized that she had been deceived. The investigation revealed that the petitioner had similarly collected large sums from various individuals, issuing cheques, all of which got bounced on presentation and misrepresenting ownership of land. Basing on these allegations, the petitioner was charged for alleged commission of offences under Sections 420/468/471/34 of IPC read with Section 6 of the OPID Act.  The petitioner moved for bail before this Court in BLAPL No.1953 of 2019.

 This Court granted bail on 11.09.2019, subject to furnishing cash security of Rs.1,50,000/-.

 The petitioner filed I.A. No.63/2020 for modification of bail conditions.

 On 06.02.2020, this Court reduced the cash security to Rs.57,500/-, but the petitioner was still unable to arrange funds and continued in custody.

A complaint was lodged by Snehalata Sukla on 11.11.2017, alleging that her husband, Chakradhar Sukla paid Rs.8,00,000/- to the petitioner for purchase of a plot at Gopalpur, which the petitioner failed to deliver. Despite repeated assurances, the petitioner did not return the money, leading to file a complaint for which FIR has been registered against the petitioner for alleged commission of offences under Sections 420/34 IPC r/w Section 6 of the OPID Act.

 The petitioner filed a bail application being BLAPL No.1057 of 2019 before this Court.

 This Court granted bail on 15.05.2019, subject to furnishing a cash security of ₹5,00,000/-.

 The petitioner filed I.A. No.64/2020 for modification of bail conditions.

 On 12.02.2020, this Court reduced the cash security to ₹2,00,000/-, but the petitioner was still unable to arrange the amount and remained in custody.

In the above five cases the accused has been in custody for more than seven years and he has been charged under various offences of the IPC and Section 6 of the OPID Act, 2011. For ready reference, the provision of the penal Sections under which the accused is charged are reproduced below: -