Orissa High Court granted bail to a stage-4 cancer patient accused in a land fraud case, observing that criminal courts are not expected to function as recovery agents for complainants. The court noted that criminal proceedings cannot be used as a mechanism for money recovery without completion of trial. The accused was alleged to be involved in land fraud amounting to approximately ₹3.5 crore, while investigation agencies had already secured around ₹1.7 crore.
FCRF Launches Flagship Certified Fraud Investigator (CFI) Program
Orissa High Court Grants Bail to Stage-4 Cancer Patient
Justice G. Satapathy, while delivering the order on February 13, emphasised that criminal proceedings are meant to ensure justice rather than facilitate monetary recovery. The court clarified that while deciding bail or anticipatory bail applications, the judiciary cannot be expected to act as a recovery authority for complainants.
During the hearing, it was brought to the court’s notice that the accused was suffering from a serious medical condition. Medical records showed that he was diagnosed with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (post right nephrectomy) with bone and pleural metastasis, and was undergoing treatment for stage-4 cancer. Doctors stated that the patient was currently receiving palliative care.
Court’s Emphasis on Health and Article 21 Rights
The court observed that the health condition of an accused is a relevant factor in bail decisions, especially when the right to personal liberty is involved. Referring to Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the bench highlighted that every individual is entitled to the right to life and personal liberty, and a humanitarian approach should be adopted in cases involving critically ill individuals.
Details of ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Allegations
The accused was allegedly involved in three separate land fraud cases showing a similar transaction pattern. The complainant claimed that he was induced to pay ₹2.05 crore for purchasing land in Khanhapur mauza, but the sale deed was never registered despite payment.
In another complaint, more than ₹50 lakh was allegedly taken for a different land transaction with a promise of registration that was never fulfilled. In the third case, the accused was alleged to have attempted to sell land belonging to a deceased person using forged documents and identity impersonation, resulting in an alleged fraud of about ₹83.85 lakh.
Judicial Observations on Criminal Proceedings and Bail Conditions
The court further observed that criminal prosecution cannot be used as a tool for retaliation or financial pressure. It stressed that criminal law is not intended to serve as a means of recovering disputed money and that punishment can be imposed only after guilt is established during trial.
The bench also noted that the accused had previously been granted interim bail and had not violated any bail conditions during that period. The court found no substantial risk of the accused absconding or attempting to influence the trial proceedings.
Following the decision, legal experts have initiated discussion on the need for a balanced judicial approach in cases involving seriously ill accused persons. Some experts argued that while humanitarian considerations are important, strict action is also necessary in economic offences to deter fraud.
The court clarified that the bail order will not affect the ongoing investigation and that the trial will continue in accordance with due legal procedures. The ruling also underscores the importance of maintaining a balance between humanitarian concerns and constitutional justice in the criminal justice system.
About the author – Ayesha Aayat is a law student and contributor covering cybercrime, online frauds, and digital safety concerns. Her writing aims to raise awareness about evolving cyber threats and legal responses.
