Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness

“Bail Is the Rule, Jail Is the Exception” – In a significant pronouncement blending economic offence jurisprudence with constitutional compassion, the Orissa High Court allowed three bail applications arising out of alleged land fraud transactions amounting to nearly ₹3.5 crores.

Justice G. Satapathy, exercising jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, held that though the allegations were serious, continued custody would not be justified when substantial amounts had been secured, evidence was largely documentary, and the accused was suffering from Stage-IV metastatic cancer. The Court emphasized that pre-trial detention must not turn into punishment and that the right to personal liberty under Article 21 remains paramount.

Alleged Pattern of Inducement and Non-Registration of Sale Deeds

The petitioner was implicated in three similar cases registered at Pipili Police Station, where informants alleged that he induced them to purchase land at Mouza Khanhapur by promising registration of sale deeds upon receipt of substantial consideration.

In one case, the informant allegedly transferred over ₹2.05 crores. In another, more than ₹50 lakhs was paid. In the third, approximately ₹78 lakhs was transferred, including through RTGS transactions. It was further alleged that in one instance, a fictitious person was introduced as landowner though the recorded owner had died long ago.

The prosecution charged the petitioner under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including offences relating to cheating, forgery, criminal breach of trust and conspiracy.

After being denied bail by the District Court, the petitioner approached the High Court, highlighting not only the merits of the case but also his grave medical condition.

Court on Bail Discretion – “Exercise of Discretion Should Not Be Arbitrary”

Before addressing the merits, the Court laid down the governing parameters for grant of bail, observing that discretion must be exercised in accordance with settled constitutional principles. The Court reiterated that factors such as prima facie case, gravity of accusation, severity of punishment, flight risk, likelihood of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses must guide the decision.

Significantly, Justice Satapathy cautioned that at the bail stage, the Court must refrain from a detailed evaluation of evidence, stating that “an extensive consideration of evidence on merits which has the potential to prejudice either the case of the prosecution or the defence is undesirable.”

“Criminal Proceedings Are Not Meant for Realization of Money”

A pivotal aspect of the judgment concerns the financial recovery already effected during investigation. The State informed the Court that out of the alleged ₹3.5 crores, approximately ₹1,70,85,348/- had either been recovered or frozen, including bank accounts and a life insurance policy.

Recording this, the Court made a strong observation:

“It is never disputed that the criminal proceedings are not meant for realization of money and the criminal Court exercising jurisdiction to grant custody bail or anticipatory bail is not expected to act as recovery agent to realize the dues of the complainant/informant and that too, without any trial.”

This observation assumes particular importance in economic offence cases, where custody is often sought on the premise of financial magnitude. The Court made it clear that detention cannot be used as leverage for recovery.

Documentary Evidence and the “Tripod Test”

Applying what it described as the “tripod test” of flight risk, influencing witnesses, and tampering with evidence, the Court found that the case was primarily based on documentary evidence of bank transactions.

The Court noted that the apprehension of absconding could be addressed by directing surrender of passport and restricting travel outside the country. It also recorded that the petitioner had earlier been granted interim bail on two occasions and “has never misused the liberty so granted.”

With regard to influencing witnesses, the Court observed that since the allegations were largely documentary in nature, there was “hardly apprehension of influencing witness or tampering evidence.”

Reaffirming constitutional principles, the Court declared, “Bail is the rule, but jail is the exception,” and emphasized that refusal of bail must not amount to pre-trial punishment.

Article 21 and Terminal Illness – A Humanitarian Dimension

One of the most compelling aspects of the case was the petitioner’s medical condition. The medical documents revealed that he was suffering from “Metastatic RCC (Right Kidney-Post Total Nephrectomy) with Bone & Pleural Mets (Stage IV)” and was undergoing immunotherapy and palliative treatment.

The State did not dispute the medical condition.

The Court took note of this grave circumstance and observed that the petitioner was “terminally ill by suffering from Stage-IV Metastatic Cancer.” Coupled with the presumption of innocence and the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, this factor weighed heavily in favour of granting bail.

Bail Granted with Stringent Conditions

On a careful conspectus of the materials, the Court allowed all three bail applications. The petitioner was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing bonds of ₹1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties in each case.

Strict conditions were imposed, including surrender of passport, prohibition from leaving the country without prior permission, mandatory cooperation with trial proceedings, disclosure of residence details, and liberty to the trial court to initiate proceedings under Section 269 of the BNS and Section 84 of the BNSS in case of violation.

The ruling stands as a reaffirmation that even in serious economic offences involving large sums, courts must balance societal interest with constitutional liberty. By emphasizing that criminal courts are not recovery agents and that bail cannot be denied as a form of punishment, the Orissa High Court has once again placed Article 21 at the heart of bail jurisprudence.

Date of Decision: 13/02/2026