Orissa High Court
Ashis Chatterjee vs Republic Of India .C.B.I. on 15 February, 2018
Author: J.P.Das
Bench: J.P.Das
BLAPL NO.1451 OF 2017
ORDER
15.02.2018The petitioner is an accused in S.P.E. No.5 of 2014 on the file of learned Special C.J.M.(C.B.I), Bhubaneswar charge-sheeted under Section 120-B read with Sections 420 and 409 of the I.P.C. and under Sections 4 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning)Act, 1978.
2. It has been alleged that the present petitioner was the Director of one of the sisters concern of Tower Infotech Limited having its registered office at Kolkata and branch offices at different places in the country including one at Baliapal in the district of Baleswar, Odisha. The company allegedly collected huge amount of public money through its agents and officials by floating various schemes with promise to give high return within short span of time, but, ultimately the investors did not get back their amount. Originally, the case was registered at Baliapal Police Station vide Baliapal P.S. Case No.85 of 2013 and subsequently, as per direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the investigation of the case has been taken over by the Central Bureau of Investigation. The petitioner was arrested on 10.03.2016. His bail application has been rejected by the courts below.
3. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's Company with 2 bonafide intention collected money from the public and also has paid the amount with interest as promised. But, subsequently, since the affairs of the Chit Fund Companies throughout the country came to a halt and the matters were taken over by the C.B.I. for investigation, Ramendu Chattopadhaya, the Managing Director of the petitioner's Company suo-motu moved an application before the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court with a prayer to refund the amounts to the investors after selling away its properties and the matter is under constant supervision and monitoring of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta. Copies of certain orders of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in this regard have been placed for perusal. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed before the Court the order dated 08.08.2013 of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta wherein it has been observed that this was not a case of Company having obtained public deposit and thereafter vanished. It was also observed that the petitioner's Company had approached the said Court seeking a direction to the appropriate authorities to enable the petitioner's Company to pay off the members of the public from whom, deposits had been collected. It was further submitted that pursuant to the direction issued by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, S.E.B.I, has taken over the job of selling the properties of the Company by inviting bidders but, since the 3 petitioner is in custody, neither the property is being sold at actual price nor the genuine bidders are coming up to purchase the property, as a result of which, the Company is being deprived of getting the actual value of its properties to pay off the dues of the investors. Hence, it has been submitted that the petitioner should be released on bail further submitting that the petitioner has althrough co-operated with the investigation.
4. It was submitted that considering the circumstances, the petitioner was granted with interim bail for different periods and the petitioner never mis- utilized his liberty and has remained in custody for about little less than two years and that charge sheet has already been submitted and there is no chance of tampering with the investigation. It was also submitted that the Managing Director of the Company being granted with interim bail has remained present before the One Man Committee and has co-operated in the process of selling of the properties of the Company.
5. Per contra, it was submitted by learned counsel for the C.B.I that the petitioner is involved in misappropriation of huge amount of public money and further investigation of the case is still continuing to find out the larger conspiracy and money trail, etc. It was also submitted that it was found out in course of 4 investigation that the Company was not listed with the Reserve Bank of India as a Non-Banking Financial company and it was also not listed in National Stock Exchange. The petitioner along with other officials of the Company indulged in illegal activities after planning and have cheated the public money to the tune of more than hundred crores rupees. The Company had collected a sum of Rs.255,91,00,541/- between the period from April, 2005 to March,2013 under various lucrative schemes and could able to give back only amount of Rs.98,97,50,508/-to the depositors towards the maturity value of the schemes leaving a balance of Rs.15,69,35,003/-. It was further submitted that the petitioner is a influential person and his release on bail may affect further investigation and has also possibility of influencing the witnesses and manipulating the material evidence.
6. Learned counsel for the C.B.I. also submitted that although the petitioner was granted with interim bail for different periods to facilitate the liquidation of the assets of the Company still nothing material has been achieved excepting sale of certain properties only of a valuation of around one crore rupees.
7. It was further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the case originally arose out of one 5 F.I.R. lodged at Baliapal Police Station in the district of Balasore, Odisha by the informant. But, during the entire investigation for more than last two years, the Investigating Agency has not assessed as to what was the amount invested by the people of the State of Odisha so as to find out the specific liability of the Company in that regard. It was also submitted that the One Man Committee appointed by the Hon'ble High Court of Kolkata has intimated the Chief Secretaries of the different States where the Company had its business to find out the investors and to place their claims so as to get back their amounts on liquidation of the assets of the Company. It was also submitted that so far as the case registered at Baliapal Police Station is concerned, the allegation was against the sisters concern of Tower Infotech Limited of which the present petitioner was said to be a Director. But, peculiarly those sisters concern Companies have not been made accused in the charge-sheet submitted by the C.B.I. It was also submitted that the petitioner was neither named as an accused in Baliapal Police Station Case No. 85 of 2013 nor was also named in the F.I.R. registered by the C.B.I on 04.06.2014. It was also submitted that no specific allegation of mis- appropriation or mis-utilization of funds has been made against the petitioner and the allegations are omnibus in nature that the petitioner along with the 6 Managing Director and other accused persons made a criminal conspiracy and collected huge amount of money from the general public assuring high returns.
8. It is not disputed that the Managing Director of the company had filed writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta praying for liquidation of its assets through the appropriate authorities so as to repay the amounts of the investors and the Hon'ble High Court has appointed One Man Committee presided over by a retired Judge of the said Court which is looking after the sale of the properties of the Company by holding different meetings inviting bidders for the purpose. The matter is also being regularly monitored by the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta. Copies of different proceedings have been filed in course of hearing of this application which show that the Managing Director so also the officers of the S.E.B.I., C.B.I and other authorities have been attending the sittings of the One Man Committee and taking steps for arranging the bidders for the sale of the properties.
9. The preliminary charge sheet was submitted as back as on 06.07.2016 and even though the investigation was kept open, still as yet no further supplementary charge-sheet has been submitted placing any new material against the petitioner or his 7 Company. The petitioner was arrested on 10.03.2016 and has remained in custody since then excepting the periods he was granted with interim bail to facilitate the proceedings before the One Man Committee. Pre- trial detention in custody can never be taken as a substitute for sentence after conviction. Of course it has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that such detention and consideration of bail application in cases of economic offences like the present one stand on a different footing than other cases of pre trial custody. But, indefinite detention of the accused on the plea of continuance of further investigation has also been deprecated by the Hon'ble Apex Court. There has been no allegation so far from the Investigating Agency that the petitioner has any way mis-utilized his liberty while granted with interim bail in different spells. Although it was submitted on behalf of the C.B.I that no substantial development has been achieved as to the sale of the properties of the Company still it is not disputed that the One Man Committee appointed by the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta is continuously making efforts in that regard and the Hon'ble High Court is monitoring the said affairs. It is also not the case of the C.B.I that any further custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary, and even if it is so, the presence of the petitioner can always be achieved for the said purpose.
810. Taking into consideration the stated facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner can be released on bail on certain conditions.
11. Accordingly, it is directed that let the petitioner be released on bail furnishing a bond of Rs.50,00,000/-(rupees fifty lakhs) with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special C.J.M.(C.B.I.) Bhubaneswar with further conditions:
(i) he shall furnish cash/property security worth of Rs.50,00,000/-(rupees fifty lakhs) to the satisfaction of the learned court below
(ii) he shall not mis-utilize his liberty in any manner whatsoever;
(iii) he shall surrender his pass-port in the learned court below, if not surrendered earlier;
(iv) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever;
(v) shall appear before the Investigating Agency as and when so required for the purpose of investigation.
The BLAPL is accordingly, disposed of.
lnb .....................
J.P.Das, J.
9 10