Orissa High Court
Mir Shahiruddin vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 23 December, 2022
Author: D.Dash
Bench: D.Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.2725 of 2020
Mir Shahiruddin .... Petitioner
Mr. L. Pangari, Sr, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. S.Nayak, Special Public Prosecutor, CBI
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE D.DASH
ORDER
23.12.2021 Order No.
06. 1. This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.
2. This is the successive journey of the Petitioner who is in custody in connection with R.C.19/S/2014-SCB/KOL corresponding to SPE No.14 of 2014 pending in the court of learned Special CJM (CBI), Bhubaneswar running for commission of offence under sections 120-B/420/409 IPC read with section 4,5 & 6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, in filing this application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for his release on bail.
3. Heard Mr. L. Pangari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.S.K.Nath, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S.Nayak, learned Special Public Prosecutor, CBI.
4. Perused the materials including the charge sheet placed on record as well as the written note of the Petitioner.
Page 1 of 5// 2 //
5. The Petitioner is the Director of M/s. Green Ray International Ltd. The first charge sheet in the case was filed on 31.12.2016 under section 120-B/420/409 IPC and section 4,5 and 6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act against the Petitioner and other Directors as well as the Managing Director of the Company. In view of scope of collection of other evidence as to money trail, larger conspiracy and role of regulatory authorities, that charge sheet being filed, the investigation had been kept open.
The Company in the name of M/s. Green Ray Marketing Services Private Ltd. had been incorporated on 22.12.2004 with ROC Odisha. It had 120 branches spread over 12 States across the country including Odisha. The main aim and objective, as indicated in the documents placed before ROC, is to deal with the consumer goods and carry on the business of network marketing and multilevel marketing of various products etc. The Company started raising money from the public in the name of selling and purchasing gold and silver coins. For the purpose, several schemes were floated. Those are in order to attract the investments. The money was raised from large number of public in the form of recurring deposits with the tall promises of high returns. Agents were being employed for the purpose when the fact remains that there was no permission from the RBI for the Company to collect such huge deposits and indulge in such activity by roping in so many persons. In course of investigation, it has been ascertained that the total amount collected in course of such said activity of the Page 2 of 5 // 3 // Company as also its sister Companies is Rs.426,60,96,424/- and the contribution of the investors from the State of Odisha, who have been diverted and cheated is as nearly as half i.e. Rs. 221,53,09,109/-. The final charge sheet has been filed on 15.09.2020. The Petitioner as the Director is said to have absconded for quite some time before he was brought on remand after being arrested and taken to custody in one case of similar nature in another State. Materials have also been collected in course of investigation as regards the active participation of this Petitioner in collecting money from the public through the allured schemes and investing the same in different Companies floated by him and others.
Mr.Pangari, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner being in custody since 19.10.2016 when the trial is still at a initial stage wherein charge being framed, two to three witnesses have been examined; further detention of the Petitioner in custody till conclusion of the trial would not serve any useful purpose. He further submits that when it is said that the Petitioner had diverted the collected amount, those are actually for the purpose of fetching better earning and return with a view to fulfill the promise given to the depositors under the schemes. He also submits that the money which is said to have been misappropriated by the Petitioner has actually been paid as tax.
Mr.S.K. Nayak, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI submits that here the magnitude of the economic offence is noteworthy and it has badly affected huge number of innocent Page 3 of 5 // 4 // depositors who had fallen in the net spread by the Petitioner and others being allured by their various schemes, which had been floated to ultimately cheat as it would be clear from the declarations under those schemes that the promises are beyond the realm of the reality and innocent people with a view to earn easy money in return have been attracted through the rigorous advertisement campaigns carried out by all those associated with the Company and being the victims under the circumstances, their economic health has been totally ruined which has ultimately come as burden on the State economy. He further submits that there being several cases outside the State of Orissa, the release of the Petitioner on bail at this stage is likely to bring all such cases all over the country to a halt. He also submits that the prayer for grant of bail to other co-accused person similarly situated with this Petitioner has been rejected by this Court.
6. Considering the submissions made and in view of all what have been said in the previous paragraphs, it appears that the Petitioner has been implicated in this case for commission of economic offences of huge magnitude and its Pan-India activity. The allegations against him as those emanate from the materials on record especially the role said to have been played in his day to day activities as the Director of the Company, are no doubt serious and grave.
7. All the aforesaid being taken into account in their proper perspective and further viewed with the conduct of the Page 4 of 5 // 5 // Petitioner as also the surrounding circumstances; I am not inclined to reconsider the prayer for grant of bail to the Petitioner merely looking at the period of detention of the Petitioner in custody.
8. Accordingly, the BLAPL is dismissed.
Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
(D. Dash), Judge.
Basu Page 5 of 5