Ramendu Chattopadhyay vs Republic Of India ... Opposite Party on 26 September, 2023

[Cites 15, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Ramendu Chattopadhyay vs Republic Of India ... Opposite Party on 26 September, 2023

Sashikanta Mishra,J. The Petitioner is in custody since 10th March, 2016 in connection with S.P.E. No.5 of 2014 arising BLAPL No.5975 of 2023 Page 1 of 12 out of Baliapal P.S. Case No.85/2013 of the Court of learned Special C.J.M.(CBI), Bhubaneswar for the offence under Sections 420/467/468/120-B/34 of I.P.C. read with Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. Originally, on the complaint submitted by the S.I. of Baliapal P.S. in the district of Balasore, Baliapal P.S. Case No.85/2013 was registered, but subsequently as per direction of the Supreme Court in W.P.(Civil) No.401/2013 passed in the case of Subrata Chattoraj vs. Union of India and others, the investigation was taken over by the C.B.I. in respect of 44 Chit Fund Companies registered in different Police Stations in the States of Odisha and West Bengal. The Petitioner is the Managing Director of one such company namely, M/s. Tower Infotech Company Ltd. having its registered office at Calcutta and branch offices at different places in the Country including one at Baliapal in the District of Balasore. It is alleged that the Company collected huge amount of money from the general public through its agents and officials under BLAPL No.5795 of 2023 Page 2 of 12 the colour of several attractive schemes promising high returns within short span of time. However, there was never any intention on its part to pay back the amount as promised and in fact, the Investors were not paid back. Basing on the investigation conducted by the C.B.I., the Petitioner was initially arrested on 10th March, 2016 and a preliminary charge sheet was submitted against him and two other persons on 6th July, 2016. The Petitioner approached this Court seeking bail in BLAPL No.5748/2016, wherein he was granted interim bail by order dated 9th May, 2017, which was subsequently extended on different dates till 4th December, 2017 and he was finally released on regular bail on 15th February, 2018. The C.B.I. approached the Supreme Court of India in Crl. Appeal No.1711/2019 challenging the order of this Court granting bail. By order dated 19th January, 2019, the Supreme Court cancelled the bail so granted consequent upon which the Petitioner surrendered before the trial Court on 16th December, 2019 and was remanded to judicial custody. The Petitioner again BLAPL No.5795 of 2023 Page 3 of 12 approached this Court for bail in BLAPL No.4688/2021. After taking note of all the relevant facts particularly, the order of cancellation of bail passed by the Supreme Court, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, by order dated 20th February, 2023 disposed of the bail application granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the trial Court for bail. The Petitioner approached the trial Court in B.A. No.736 of 2023, which came to be rejected by order dated 8 th May, 2023. The present bail application has been filed after such rejection.

2. Heard Mr. H.M.Dhal, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Sarthak Nayak, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the C.B.I.

3. Mr. H.M.Dhal would argue that the Petitioner has been in custody for nearly 5 and half years after accounting for the period during which he was on interim and regular bail. All the offences alleged against the Petitioner are punishable with imprisonment for terms less than 5 years save and BLAPL No.5795 of 2023 Page 4 of 12 except Section 409 I.P.C., which is punishable with imprisonment for life or 10 years. The Petitioner having been in custody for more than half of the period of sentence that may be imposed on him in case of his conviction is therefore, entitled to be released on bail. In this context, Mr. Dhal has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of SATENDER KUMAR ANTIL versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION; (2022) 10 SCC 51; wherein it was laid down that in case of economic offences, the gravity of offence, seriousness of the charge and quantum of punishment has to be considered while granting bail. Mr. Dhal further submits that an accused cannot be detained in custody indefinitely for the default of the prosecuting agency in ensuring early completion of the trial. In the instant case, more than 150 witnesses are proposed to be examined as per the charge sheet, but not a single one of them has been examined so far. Under such circumstances, the Petitioner's further detention adversely affects his right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of BLAPL No.5795 of 2023 Page 5 of 12 India. It is further submitted that in the supplementary charge sheet filed in the case by CBI, no further material has been unearthed against him.

4. Per contra, Mr. S. Nayak has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that having regard to the huge quantity of money duped by the Petitioner through his Company from the gullible investors, he deserves no leniency. The amount involved is more than Rupees 250 crores, which is nothing but the hard earned money of small investors of the State. Mr. Nayak further submits that taking note of the gravity of the offences, the Supreme Court deemed it proper to cancel the bail granted by this Court by specifically observing that the Petitioner should not have been released on bail. Further, the Petitioner appears to be a habitual offender as there is material to show that he is involved in similar offences. Moreover, the conduct of the Petitioner in not surrendering to custody after cancellation of bail by the Supreme Court is also noteworthy.

BLAPL No.5795 of 2023 Page 6 of 12

5. I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the case record carefully. The basic facts of the case relating to registration of the case, arrest of the Petitioner and his subsequent release on bail by this Court as also cancellation thereof by the Supreme Court are not disputed. As regards the nature of the alleged offences, it is seen that the Petitioner is the Managing Director of Tower Infotech Company Ltd. which is alleged to have duped large number of small investors by floating alluring schemes with false promise of high returns. In the process, more than Rupees 250 crores appear to have been collected by the Company. It is further seen that out of a total amount of Rs.255,91,00,541/-, a sum of Rs.15,69,35,003/- still remains to be paid to the investors. Even though it is said that the supplementary charge sheet did not bring forth any material against the Petitioner, but fact remains that the preliminary charge sheet itself is sufficient to show, prima facie, his involvement in the occurrence. It is for such reason that the Supreme Court did not consider BLAPL No.5795 of 2023 Page 7 of 12 it to a fit case for allowing the bail granted to the Petitioner to continue. In the case of C.B.I. v. Ramendu Chattopadhyay; (2020) 14 SCC 396, it was observed by the Supreme Court as under;

"4. The records prima facie reveal that the respondent was the founding Director of the accused company. He was a key decision-making authority of the company, and used to sign certificates issued to the investors and other important documents. He was also an authorised signatory of all bank accounts of the company and used to conduct agents' meetings. As per the allegations, he used to mislead the agents by stating that the company had necessary permissions from the regulatory authorities to collect funds, and also used to project in the meetings that the returns paid by the accused company to its investors were higher than any other agency. As per the charge-sheet, the accused company used to receive cash from the investors so that the respondent, who used to receive cash directly from the company account frequently, without proper accounting, could easily siphon off the money.

5. The respondent was granted interim bail by the High Court on 9-5-2017 in Misc. Case No. 738 of 2017 for three months, inter alia, for the purpose of his cooperation with the authorities in liquidating the assets of the company for repaying the investors. The aforementioned period of interim bail was extended from time to time by the High Court i.e. on 13-9-2017 up to 25-10-2017, on 25-10-2017 up to 9-11-2017, and on 27-11-2017 up to 4-12-2017. Subsequently, he was released on bail by the impugned order, as mentioned supra. It has been brought to the notice of this Court by CBI that during the said periods of availing bail, not a single property of the accused company could be sold, and the very purpose of his availing interim bail was frustrated, though a One-Man Committee headed by a retired Judge of the High Court, namely, Justice S.P. Talukdar, was appointed for this purpose. A letter dated 8-8-2019 written by Justice Talukdar, a copy of which BLAPL No.5795 of 2023 Page 8 of 12 was produced before this Court, reveals that no property of the Tower Group of Companies has been sold by the One-Man Committee so far, and as a consequence, no amount has been deposited in the account of the One- Man Committee or returned to the investors.

6. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that the respondent, with the dishonest intention of deceiving and alluring investors, as well as agents and business developers, had got brochures of the Tower Group of Companies published. In the aforesaid brochures, a letter was published in the name of Smt Sheela Bhide, IAS, Chairman and Managing Director, India Trade Promotion Organisation. On the basis of this purported letter, it prima facie appears that the accused tried to falsely impress upon the public that the accused company was doing lawful business and also gaining huge profits. Though Smt Sheela Bhide was also named as an accused in FIR, during investigation, she denied having issued this letter.

7. This Court is conscious of the need to view such economic offences having a deep-rooted conspiracy and involving a huge loss of investors' money seriously. Though further investigation is going on, as of now, the investigation discloses that the respondent played a key role in the promotion of the chit fund scam described supra, thereby cheating a large number of innocent depositors and misappropriating their hard-earned money.

8. We are of the prima facie view that if the respondent continues on bail, there is little chance of realising any amount by selling the properties of the Tower Group of Companies, since he may use unlawful tactics to keep prospective buyers away. Moreover, it is relevant to note that the investigating agency has not yet assessed the exact total amount invested by the people of Orissa in the accused company, so as to find out the specific liability of the company in that regard. However, it is argued by both the counsel that the amount may be about Rs 350 crores. Be that as it may, having regard to the material on record, and since a huge amount of money belonging to the investors has been siphoned off, as well as for the aforesaid reasons, the High Court, in our considered opinion, should not have released the respondent on bail."

BLAPL No.5795 of 2023 Page 9 of 12

6. The above observations of the Supreme Court speak for themselves as to the role of the Petitioner and secondly, the likelihood of his using unlawful tactics to keep prospective buyers of the seized assets away sale of which is intended to be used to pay off the investors. In the case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in AIR 2013 SC 1933, the apex Court held as follows;

"15. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.

16. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations."

7. Coming to the ground of delay in trial, this Court is of the view that though ordinarily accused persons should not be detained indefinitely pending conclusion BLAPL No.5795 of 2023 Page 10 of 12 of trial, yet all cases cannot be treated on the same yardstick. This is a case where the Petitioner is a highly influential person. Till date no witnesses have been examined. If the Petitioner is released at this stage, it is quite possible that he may try to influence the witnesses in his favour thereby jeopardizing a fair trial. Of course this Court is conscious of the fact that he is to be presumed as innocent until proven guilty, but on the face of such overwhelming evidence available to at least, prima facie, show his involvement in the alleged occurrence, the presumption of innocence cannot come to his help.

8. For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court does not deem it proper to direct release of the Petitioner on bail at this stage. Resultantly, the bail application stands rejected. However, the trial Court should do well to make all efforts to commence and conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible. Further, the prosecution must also come up with the list of witnesses it intends to examine to prove the guilt BLAPL No.5795 of 2023 Page 11 of 12 of the Petitioner and in such event, the trial Court shall do well to examine them at the first instance. This is being said keeping in view the fact that the Petitioner has already spent 5 and half years in custody by now and trial is yet to commence.

.................................. (Sashikanta Mishra) Judge Ashok Kumar Behera Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 27-Sep-2023 11:26:08 BLAPL No.5795 of 2023 Page 12 of 12

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Orissa High Court