Orissa High Court
Pallavi Mishra @ vs State Of Odisha (O.P.I.D.)...... Opp. ... on 5 August, 2024
Author: S.K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
BLAPL No. 11483 of 2023
Application under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 in connection with Dhenkanal Town P.S. Case No.131 of
2022 corresponding to C.T. Case No.04 of 2022 pending on the
file of Presiding Officer, Designated Court under the O.P.I.D. Act,
Cuttack.
-----------------------------
Pallavi Mishra @
Pallavi Hota ...... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Odisha (O.P.I.D.)...... Opp. Party
BLAPL No. 556 of 2024
Satyaranjan Hota ...... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Odisha (O.P.I.D.)...... Opp. Party
For Petitioners: - Mr. Yasobanta Das
Senior Advocate
For Opp. Party: - Mr. Bibekananda Bhuyan
Mr. J.P. Patra
Special Counsel (O.P.I.D.)
For Informant: - Mr. Jeetendra Sahu
Advocate
-----------------------------
P R E S E N T:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
...................................................................................................
Date of Hearing: 26.07.2024 Date of Order: 05.08.2024
...................................................................................................
Page 1 of 24
S.K. SAHOO, J. Since both the bail applications arise out of one case,
with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same
were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common
order.
2. Both the applications are under section 439 of
Cr.P.C. in connection with C.T. Case No.04 of 2022 arising out of
Dhenkanal Town P.S. Case No.131 of 2022 pending in the Court
of learned Presiding Officer, Designated Court under the O.P.I.D.
Act, Cuttack for offences punishable under sections
420/406/467/468/471/120-B/506 of the Indian Penal Code read
with sections 4/5/6 of the Prize, Chits and Money Circulation
Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 read with section 6 of the Odisha
Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial
Establishments) Act, 2011 (hereafter „O.P.I.D. Act‟).
3. The petitioners, Pallavi Mishra @ Pallavi Hota (in
BLAPL No.11483 of 2023) and Satyaranjan Hota (in BLAPL
No.556 of 2024) moved applications for bail before the Court of
learned Presiding Officer, Designated Court under the O.P.I.D.
Act, Cuttack, which were rejected on 26.09.2023 and
08.01.2024 respectively.
4. The prosecution case, in short, is that both the
petitioners Pallavi Mishra @ Pallavi Hota (in BLAPL No.11483 of
2023) and Satyaranjan Hota (in BLAPL No.556 of 2024) having ill
Page 2 of 24
intention came in contact with the informant Kamalakanta Sahu
and they induced the informant and his friends to deposit money
in share market to get high interest. Being allured by such false
assurance, the informant and his friends deposited money in the
petitioners‟ company since 2018 and had been issued with bond
papers. The depositors were returned with some amount of
interest for some period for creating faith in their company.
Subsequently, since January 2021, both the petitioners did not
return any money or interest on the principal amount to the
depositors. Thereafter, when the petitioners were compelled to
return the money, petitioner Satyaranjan Hota issued cheques of
his company and the cheques of the account number registered
in his name by forging his signatures. When the cheques were
deposited for payment, the signature of the petitioner
Satyaranjan Hota did not match with the specimen signature
submitted to the bank earlier. Thereafter, when the petitioners
were asked to return the principal amount, the petitioner
Satyaranjan Hota reported that he has lost the same.
It is further stated in the F.I.R. that both the
petitioners have collected Rs.1,00,00,000/- (rupees one crore)
from the informant, Rs.74,00,000/- (rupees seventy four lakhs
from one Subrata Das, Rs.3,00,000/- (rupees three lakhs) from
one Jyotiranjan, Rs.2,00,000/- (rupees two lakhs) from the
mother of one Surjit Sahu, Rs.56,00,000/- (rupees fifty six
Page 3 of 24
lakhs) from one Rajiv Lochan Sahu, Rs.2,00,000/- (rupees two
lakhs) from one Manas Ranjan Sahu, Rs.17,00,000/- (rupees
seventeen lakhs) from one Madhusudan Sahu and Rs.5,00,000/-
(rupees five lakhs) from one Pabitra Moharana. On 10.03.2022
when both the petitioners were found by the informant and his
friends at Rathgada L.I.C. colony, Dhenkanal and they urged
them to return the money and asked as to why he had issued
cheques putting false signatures, both the petitioners threatened
the informant with dire consequences if he would report the
matter in the police station against them and their company.
Thereafter, the informant Kamalakanta Sahu and
another presented a written report at Dhenkanal police station
which was registered as Dhenkanal Town P.S. case No.131 dated
11.03.2022 and both the petitioners have been forwarded and
subsequently the charge of investigation of this case has been
taken over by E.O.W. P.S., Bhubaneswar and accordingly,
E.O.W. P.S. Case No.10 dated 27.04.2022 was registered against
both the petitioners.
During course of investigation, it was found that M/s.
Purple Qualves Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. and its Directors
Satyaranjan Hota, Pallavi Mishra @ Hota were running illegal
money circulation scheme during 2020-2021, in the guise of
providing high rate of return against the deposit amounts in
Odisha and failed to provide the assured service/returns for
Page 4 of 24
which money was invested by the gullible depositors. It was also
found during investigation from the statement of accounts of the
bank accounts of Satyaranjan Hota, A/c. No.30045405796
maintained with SBI, Bazar Branch, Dhenkanal, Pallavi Mishra
A/c. No.20396493299, maintained with SBI, Bajrakabati Road,
Cuttack, so far scrutinized that, Kamala Kanta Sahoo has
transferred/deposited Rs.34,58,000/- in the account
No.30045405796 of Satyaranjan Hota and Rs.3,00,000/- in the
account No.20396493299 of Pallavi Mishra, Subrat Kumar Das
has transferred/deposited Rs.29,10,000/- in the account
No.30045405796 of Satyaranjan Hota and Rs.8,20,000/- in the
account No.20396493299 of Pallavi Mishra. Besides that, the
investors had directly made deposits in the company‟s account
as well as in the accounts of Directors. The said amount as
collected by Satyaranjan Hota and Pallavi Mishra might be
increased after receipt and scrutiny of all the bank statements of
the company held in the name of M/s. Purple Qualves Financial
Services Private Limited, as well as in the name of its Directors
Satyaranjan Hota, Pallavi Mishra and others.
5. Mr. Yasobanta Das, learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner
Satyaranjan Hota (in BLAPL No.556 of 2024) is in judicial
custody since 14.03.2022 whereas the petitioner Pallavi Mishra
@ Pallavi Hota (in BLAPL No.11483 of 2023) is in judicial custody
Page 5 of 24
since 05.05.2022 and earlier when the petitioners approached
this Court for bail in BLAPL No.3884 of 2022 and BLAPL No.4422
of 2022 respectively, the bail application was rejected as per
order dated 10.07.2023 taking into account the nature of
accusation, the huge amount collected from the innocent persons
on the bedrock of false assurances and since it is an economic
offence, which is considered to be a grave offence and it is
committed with cool calculation and deliberate design which has
far reaching impact on the society and keeping in view the larger
interest of public and State. Learned counsel further submitted
that the petitioners have been charge sheeted under sections
420/406/467/468/471/506/120-B of the Indian Penal Code read
with sections 4/5/6 of the Prize, Chits and Money Circulation
Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 read with section 6 of the O.P.I.D.
Act.
Referring to some investment agreements between
the investors and the company, it is argued that such investment
would not come within the definition of „deposit‟ as per section
2(b) of the O.P.I.D. Act. He further submitted that this Court
cannot even insist for deposit of the amount taken from the
depositors as a condition precedent for grant of bail. He further
submitted that since the trial is progressing at a snail‟s pace and
only five witnesses have been examined so far out of thirty three
charge sheet witnesses and the petitioners are in judicial custody
Page 6 of 24
for more than two years, the case is mainly based on
documentary evidence which are already seized and there is no
question of tampering with the evidence, the bail applications of
the petitioners may be favourably reconsidered.
6. Mr. Bibekananda Bhuyan, learned Special Counsel
appearing for the State of Odisha in O.P.I.D. Act matters, on the
other hand, submitted that it is a case of commission of
economic offences by both the petitioners and as per the charge
sheet, the petitioners have taken crores of rupees from the
investors and since there was no challenge either to taking of
cognizance of offence or framing of charge under section 6 of the
O.P.I.D. Act and the trial is under progress, while deciding the
application for bail, this Court should not give any finding
whether the ingredients of the offence under section 6 of the
O.P.I.D. Act is made out or not which is likely to cause serious
prejudice to the prosecution. He argued that material witnesses
are still there to be examined in the trial Court and at this stage,
if the petitioners are released on bail, there is every chance of
tampering with the evidence. Learned counsel further submitted
that this Court can direct for expeditious disposal of trial, in case
it is felt that there is any delay in holding the same.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance in
the case of Ramesh Kumar -Vrs.- State of NCT of Delhi
Page 7 of 24
reported in (2023) 7 Supreme Court Cases 461 wherein it is
held as follows:-
"25. Law regarding exercise of discretion while
granting a prayer for bail under Section 438
Cr.P.C. having been authoritatively laid down
by this Court, we cannot but disapprove the
imposition of a condition of the nature under
challenge. Assuming that there is substance in
the allegation of the complainants that the
appellant (either in connivance with the builder
or even in the absence of any such connivance)
has cheated the complainants, the investigation
is yet to result in a charge-sheet being filed
under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., not to speak of
the alleged offence being proved before the
competent trial court in accordance with the
settled procedures and the applicable laws.
Sub-section (2) of Section 438 Cr.P.C. does
empower the High Court or the Court of
Session to impose such conditions while
making a direction under sub-section (1) as it
may think fit in the light of the facts of the
particular case and such direction may include
the conditions as in clauses (i) to (iv) thereof.
However, a reading of the precedents laid down
by this Court referred to above makes the
position of law clear that the conditions to be
imposed must not be onerous or unreasonable
or excessive. In the context of grant of bail, all
such conditions that would facilitate the
appearance of the accused before the
Page 8 of 24
investigating officer/court, unhindered
completion of investigation/trial and safety of
the community assume relevance. However,
inclusion of a condition for payment of money
by the applicant for bail tends to create an
impression that bail could be secured by
depositing money alleged to have been
cheated. That is really not the purpose and
intent of the provisions for grant of bail.
26. We may, however, not be understood to
have laid down the law that in no case should
willingness to make payment/deposit by the
accused be considered before grant of an order
for bail. In exceptional cases such as where an
allegation of misappropriation of public money
by the accused is levelled and the accused
while seeking indulgence of the court to have
his liberty secured/restored volunteers to
account for the whole or any part of the public
money allegedly misappropriated by him, it
would be open to the court concerned to
consider whether in the larger public interest
the money misappropriated should be allowed
to be deposited before the application for
anticipatory bail/bail is taken up for final
consideration. After all, no court should be
averse to putting public money back in the
system if the situation is conducive therefor.
We are minded to think that this approach
would be in the larger interest of the
community. However, such an approach would
Page 9 of 24
not be warranted in cases of private disputes
where private parties complain of their money
being involved in the offence of cheating.
27. Turning to the facts here, what we find is
that the version in the F.I.R., even if taken on
face value, discloses payment through cheques
of Rs.17,00,000 (Rupees seventeen lakhs) in
the name of the appellant and not
Rs.22,00,000 (Rupees twenty-two lakhs). We
have not been able to comprehend how the
High Court arrived at the latter figure as
payable by the appellant and why the
appellant's counsel as well agreed with such
figure. Prima facie, there appears to be some
sort of a calculation error. Also, prima facie,
there remains some doubt as regards the
conduct of the appellant in receiving cheques
from the complainants without there being any
agreement inter se. Be that as it may, the High
Court ought to have realised that having regard
to the nature of dispute between the parties,
which is predominantly civil in nature, the
process of criminal law cannot be pressed into
service for settling a civil dispute. Even if the
appellant had undertaken to make payment,
which we are inclined to believe was a last
ditch effort to avert losing his liberty, such
undertaking could not have weighed in the
mind of the High Court to decide the question
of grant of anticipatory bail. The tests for grant
of anticipatory bail are well delineated and
Page 10 of 24
stand recognised by passage of time. The High
Court would have been well-advised to
examine whether the appellant was to be
denied anticipatory bail on his failure to satisfy
any of such tests. It does seem that the
submission made by the counsel on behalf of
the appellant before the High Court had its own
effect, although it was far from being a relevant
consideration for the purpose of grant of bail.
28. It also does not appear from the materials
on record that the complainants have instituted
any civil suit for recovery of money allegedly
paid by them to the appellant. If at all the
offence alleged against the appellant is proved
resulting in his conviction, he would be bound
to suffer penal consequence(s) but despite
such conviction he may not be under any
obligation to repay the amount allegedly
received from the complainants. This too is an
aspect which the High Court exercising
jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C. did not
bear in mind.
xxx xxx xxx
32. Before concluding, we need to dispose of
I.A. No.94276 of 2023. It is an application for
intervention at the instance of the
complainants, who seek to assist the Court on
the ground that any order passed on the appeal
without giving opportunity of hearing to them
would cause grave prejudice.
Page 11 of 24
33. We hold that at this stage, the
complainants have no right of audience before
this Court or even the High Court having regard
to the nature of offence alleged to have been
committed by the appellant unless, of course, a
situation for compounding of the offence under
Section 420 I.P.C., with the permission of the
court, arises."
Learned counsel also placed reliance in the case of
Sanjay Chandra -Vrs.- Central Bureau of Investigation
reported in (2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases 40, wherein it is
held as follows:-
"46. We are conscious of the fact that the
accused are charged with economic offences of
huge magnitude. We are also conscious of the
fact that the offences alleged, if proved, may
jeopardise the economy of the country. At the
same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that
the investigating agency has already completed
investigation and the charge sheet is already
filed before the Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi.
Therefore, their presence in the custody may
not be necessary for further investigation. We
are of the view that the appellants are entitled
to the grant of bail pending trial on stringent
conditions in order to ally the apprehension
expressed by CBI."
Learned counsel also placed reliance in the case of
U.N. Gupta @ Udhav Narayan Gupta & Others -Vrs.- The
Page 12 of 24
State of Bihar & Another [Special Leave Petition
(Criminal) No.5916 of 2024], wherein it is held as follows:-
"5. The High Court, in our considered view,
ought to have examined the question of grant
of bail without being swayed by the submission
on behalf of the appellants. Having regard to
the settled principles of law laid down in the
decisions referred to above, inter alia, to the
effect that the Courts, exercising jurisdiction to
grant bail/pre-arrest bail, are not expected to
act as recovery agents for realization of dues of
the complainant from the accused, the High
Court ought to have independently apply its
mind and arrive at a conclusion as to whether a
case for grant of bail had been made out or not
on settled parameters, irrespective of whatever
submission had been advanced on behalf of the
appellants."
Learned counsel also placed reliance in the case of
Gajanan Property Dealer and Construction Pvt. Ltd. and
Others -Vrs.- State of Orissa and Another reported in 2018
SCC OnLine Ori 387, wherein it is held as follows:-
60. Section 6 of the OPID Act deals with
punishment for default in repayment of
deposits and interests honouring the
commitment. In order to attract the ingredients
of the offence, the following aspects are to be
proved:
Page 13 of 24
(i) Default in returning the deposit by
any Financial Establishment; or
(ii) Default in payment of interest on
the deposit or failure to return in any
kind by any Financial Establishment; or
(iii) Failure to render service by any
Financial Establishment for which the
deposits have been made.
61. In the event any of the aforesaid aspects is
proved, every person responsible for the
management of the affairs of the Financial
Establishment shall be held guilty. „Financial
Establishment‟ has been defined under section
2(d) of the OPID Act and „deposit‟ has been
defined under section 2(b) of the OPID Act. The
word „default‟ in section 6 of the OPID Act has
been used in conjunction with honouring the
commitment and therefore, it depends upon
the reciprocal promises. The material available
on record indicate that after several round of
discussions and execution of successive
agreements, the job of arranging a sizable
extent of land at Bhubaneswar was entrusted
to the company by the HAL Housing
Committee. It was a herculean task and in
spite of that, it appears that the company did
his best in arranging a major extent of land.
Dispute arose when the hope of the company
to proceed with the housing project on the
acquired land as a part of composite agreement
was shattered by the conduct of the committee
Page 14 of 24
in making attempt to hand over the housing
project to a 3rd party. Therefore, it is difficult to
fathom that any commitment made by the
company was flouted deliberately or that the
company committed any default or failed to
render any service for which the deposit was
accepted."
8. The bail application of the petitioners was rejected as
per the order dated 10.07.2023 and trial has commenced and
five witnesses have been examined. It appears that last witness
i.e. P.W.5 was examined on 26.02.2024 and the learned counsel
for the State has filed a memo wherein it is indicated that the
case is posted to 05.08.2024 for examination of P.W.6.
9. Adverting to the contentions raised by the learned
counsel for the respective parties, it is no more res integra that
economic offences are always considered as grave offences as it
affects the economy of the country as a whole and such offences
having deep rooted conspiracy, involving huge loss of public fund
are to be viewed seriously. Economic offences are committed
with cool calculation and deliberate design solely with an eye on
personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community.
In such type of offences, while granting bail, the Court has to
keep in mind, inter alia, the larger interest of public and State.
The nature and seriousness of an economic offence and its
impact on the society are always important considerations in
Page 15 of 24
such a case and those aspects must squarely be dealt with by
the Court while passing an order on bail applications.
Detailed examination of evidence and elaborate
discussion on merits of the case should not be undertaken while
adjudicating a bail application as it is bound to prejudice fair
trial. The nature of accusation, the severity of punishment in
case of conviction, the nature of supporting evidence, the
criminal antecedents of the accused, if any, reasonable
apprehension of tampering with the witnesses, apprehension of
threat to the witnesses, reasonable possibility of securing the
presence of the accused at the time of trial and above all the
larger interests of the public and State are required to be taken
note of by the Court while granting bail.
There is no dispute that the first bail applications of
the petitioners in BLAPL No.4422 of 2022 and BLAPL No.3884 of
2022 were rejected by this Court vide common order dated
10.07.2023 and the petitioners have not approached the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court against such order. It is the settled position of
law that successive bail applications are permissible under
changed circumstances, but the change of circumstances must
be substantial one which has a direct impact on the earlier
decision and not merely cosmetic changes which are of little or
no consequence. Without the change in the circumstances, the
subsequent bail application would be deemed to be seeking
Page 16 of 24
review of the earlier rejection order, which is not permissible
under criminal law. While entertaining such subsequent bail
applications, the Court has a duty to consider the reasons and
grounds on which the earlier bail application was rejected and
what are the fresh grounds which persuade it to warrant the
evaluation and consideration of the bail application afresh and to
take a view different from the one taken in the earlier
application. There must be some changes in the factual scenario
or in law which requires the earlier view being interfered with or
the relief can also be extended where the earlier finding has
become obsolete. This is the limited area in which the application
for bail of an accused which has been rejected earlier can be
reconsidered. If a bail application is rejected considering some
grounds urged by the counsel for the accused and on the self-
same materials and without any change in the circumstances,
the successive bail application is moved and the Court is asked
to reconsider the prayer of bail, it would be an endless exercise
for the Court and entertaining such application would be a sheer
wastage of valuable time of the Court. The above proposition of
law is bred-in-the-bone of the criminal justice system which has
time and again been affirmed and reaffirmed by the Hon‟ble
Apex Court and if at all there is a need to cite an authority for
precedential backing, I may rely on the case of State of M.P.
-Vrs.- Kajad reported in (2001) 7 Supreme Court Cases
Page 17 of 24
673 in which it was categorically held that without the change in
the circumstances, the second application would be deemed to
be seeking review of the earlier judgment which is not
permissible under criminal law.
10. It is seen that almost identical contentions were
raised in BLAPL No.4422 of 2022 and BLAPL No.3884 of 2022
except that the informant and the witnesses do not come under
the category of investors/depositors but they come under the
category of allottees/purchasers as per RERA Act. This Court in
the case of Prasan Kumar Patra -Vrs.- State of Odisha
reported in (2019) 74 Orissa Criminal Reports 221 held as
follows:
"........Prior to the amendment made in the year
2016, the term „deposit‟ as per section 2(b) of
the O.P.I.D. Act meant the deposit of money
either in one lump sum or by installments made
with the Financial Establishment for a fixed
period for interest or for return in any kind or for
any service. After the amendment which came
into force on 11.11.2016 as per Odisha Act 15 of
2016, the term „deposit‟ as per section 2(b) of
the O.P.I.D. Act included any receipt of money
or acceptance of any valuable commodity, to be
returned after a specified period or otherwise,
either in cash or in kind or in the form of a
specified service, by any Financial
Establishment, with or without any benefit in the
Page 18 of 24
form of interest, bonus, profit or in any other
form. The term „deposit‟ excluded certain
amounts from its purview which have been
enumerated under clauses (i) to (vii) of section
2(b) of the O.P.I.D. Act.
The term „Financial Establishment‟ as
appears in section 2(d) of the O.P.I.D. Act
means an individual or an association of
individual, a firm or a company registered under
the Companies Act, 1956 carrying on the
business of receiving deposits under any scheme
or arrangement or in any other manner. This
term excludes a corporation or a co-operative
society owned or controlled by any State
Government or the Central Government or a
Banking Company as defined under clause (c) of
section 5 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949.
Since the company in this case was
registered under the Companies Act by ROC,
Odisha, Cuttack on 07.05.2009 and it was
carrying on the business of receiving money
from the public under Pragyan Vihar Project for
providing developed plots to the investors and
the terms and conditions of such business have
been indicated in the brochure issued by the
company, in my humble view, the company
comes under „Financial Establishment‟ as per
section 2(d) of the O.P.I.D. Act. The money
which was deposited with the company either in
one lump sum or by installments was for getting
developed plots as per the assurance given in
Page 19 of 24
the brochure. Therefore, such money paid to the
company would come within the term „deposit‟
as per section 2(b) of the O.P.I.D. Act.
Section 6 of the O.P.I.D. Act, inter alia,
states that if any Financial Establishment fails to
render service for which the deposit has been
made then every person responsible for the
management of the affairs of the Financial
Establishment shall be punished with
imprisonment and fine as provided under the
said section and such Financial Establishment is
also liable to pay fine. The fine amount of rupees
„one lakh‟ and „two lakh‟ were enhanced to „ten
lakh‟ and „one crore‟ respectively by virtue of the
amendment which was made in the year 2016.
Even though the deposits were received prior to
the enactment of the O.P.I.D. Act, as the
company failed to render service in providing
developed plots to the depositors under Pragyan
Vihar Project, after the O.P.I.D. Act came into
force, non-rendering of service makes it a
„continuing offence‟. According to the Blacks'
Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition (Special Deluxe),
'continuing' means "enduring; not terminated by
a single act or fact; subsisting for a definite
period or intended to cover or apply to
successive similar obligations or occurrences". A
continuing offence is the type of crime which is
committed over a span of time. It is susceptible
of continuance and is distinguishable from the
one which is committed once and for all. It is
Page 20 of 24
one of those offences which arise out of a failure
to comply certain requirements and it continues
until the requirements are obeyed or complied
with. On every occasion the disobedience or
non-compliance occurs and reoccurs, the offence
is committed. It constitutes a fresh offence
every time. In case of Udai Shankar Awasthi -
Vrs.- State of U.P. reported in (2013) 2
Supreme Court Cases 435, Hon‟ble Supreme
Court held that in the case of a continuing
offence, the ingredients of the offence continue,
i.e. endure even after the period of
consummation whereas in an instantaneous
offence, the offence takes place once and for all
i.e. when the same actually takes place. In such
cases, there is no continuing offence, even
though the damage resulting from the injury
may itself continue.
So long as the Financial Establishment
fails to render service for which the deposit has
been accepted, it would be a continuing offence
irrespective of the fact whether deposit was
accepted prior to enactment of O.P.I.D. Act, if
failure to render service continues after the Act
came into force. In my humble view, the prima
facie ingredients of offence under section 6 of
the O.P.I.D. Act are attracted in the case.
Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel
for the petitioner that the registration of the
F.I.R. and submission of charge sheet under
Page 21 of 24
section 6 of the O.P.I.D. Act was not proper and
justified cannot be accepted."
11. It is rightly contended by the learned counsel for the
State that when the petitioners have not challenged the
submission of charge sheet under section 6 of the O.P.I.D. Act so
also the order of taking cognizance for such offence and also the
order of framing of the charge and the trial is under progress,
any finding given while considering the application for bail as to
whether the ingredients of the offence under section 6 of the
O.P.I.D. Act be made out or not, would not be proper.
However, it appears to me that there is a slow
progress of the trial inasmuch as after framing of the charge,
P.W.1 was examined on 12.04.2023 and the last witness i.e.
P.W.5 was examined on 26.02.2024. Even though five months
have elapsed in the meantime, there is no further progress in
the trial. Mr. Das, learned Senior Advocate has rightly pointed
out that the petitioners are in custody for more than two years
and they are no way responsible for delayed trial.
Right of speedy trial is a fundamental right under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India and denial of this right
corrodes the public confidence in the justice delivery system.
Prolonged delay in disposal of the trial, for no fault of the
accused, confers a right upon him to apply for bail. Right to bail
Page 22 of 24
is not to be denied merely because of the sentiments of the
community against the accused. Even economic offence falls
under the category of „grave offence‟, it is not a rule that bail
should be denied in every case. The Court must be sensitive to
the nature of allegation made against the accused and the term
of sentence that is prescribed for the offence alleged to have
been committed.
In view of the state of affairs, since there is no
change in the circumstances after rejection of the earlier bail
application on 10.07.2023 except that the petitioners have been
detained in custody further for more than a year, in view of the
nature and gravity of the accusation, the allegation of
commission of economic offences by the petitioners by taking
huge amounts from innocent persons and reasonable
apprehension of tampering with the evidence when number of
important witnesses are yet to be examined, while not inclining
to release the petitioners on bail on merit, I direct the learned
trial Court to expedite the trial and make every endeavor to
conclude the same within a period of six months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. It is further directed that the
examination of witnesses shall be taken up keeping in view the
provision under section 309 of Cr.P.C. which deals with
expeditious holding of the proceeding and continuous
Page 23 of 24
examination of witnesses from day to day and recording reasons
for adjourning the case beyond the following day.
However, the petitioners are at liberty to renew their
prayer for bail, if the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid
period.
Accordingly, both the bail applications being devoid
of merits, stand dismissed.
A copy of the order be communicated to the learned
trial Court for compliance.
...........................
S.K. Sahoo, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 5th August 2024/RKMishra Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RABINDRA KUMAR MISHRA Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 05-Aug-2024 11:33:51 Page 24 of 24