<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2016 (10) TMI 1409 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464747</link>
    <description>Orissa HC refused bail in a plotted-land scheme prosecution after finding prima facie criminal intention at the inception of the inducement. The Court held that a transaction presented as a welfare or commercial scheme can disclose criminality where the accused allegedly collected investor money, failed to deliver identifiable plots or possession, and the sale deeds did not match the land on the ground. Applying the settled approach that economic offences require careful assessment of the accusations, gravity, public interest, and prima facie case, the Court treated the petitioner&#039;s role in floating the scheme and the risk to trial availability as adverse factors. Bail was denied because the matter could not be treated as a mere civil dispute.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Nov 2025 19:42:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=864117" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (10) TMI 1409 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464747</link>
      <description>Orissa HC refused bail in a plotted-land scheme prosecution after finding prima facie criminal intention at the inception of the inducement. The Court held that a transaction presented as a welfare or commercial scheme can disclose criminality where the accused allegedly collected investor money, failed to deliver identifiable plots or possession, and the sale deeds did not match the land on the ground. Applying the settled approach that economic offences require careful assessment of the accusations, gravity, public interest, and prima facie case, the Court treated the petitioner&#039;s role in floating the scheme and the risk to trial availability as adverse factors. Bail was denied because the matter could not be treated as a mere civil dispute.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464747</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>