Orissa High Court
Pratap Kumar Biswal vs State Of Odisha (Opid) .... Opposite ... on 4 July, 2022
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.5217 of 2022
Pratap Kumar Biswal .... Petitioner
Mr. M. Kanungo, Sr. Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha (OPID) .... Opposite Party
Mr. B. Bhuyan, counsel for OPID
CORAM:
JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
DATE OF ORDER:04.07.2022
1.This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner for release on bail in connection with C.T. Case No.3(C) of 2019 arising out of EOW P.S. Case No.16 of 2019 registered under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC read with Section 6 of the OPID Act, 2011 pending in the court of learned Presiding Officer, Designated Court (OPID Act), Balasore on the grounds inter alia that he is in custody since 25th July, 2021 and no further custodial interrogation is necessary.
2. An FIR was lodged on 30th August, 2019 alleging therein that M/s Mass Infra Realty Limited, a company registered under the Company Act, 1956 which was later on converted to a Cooperative Society and the petitioner being its Chairman-cum- Managing Director along with other office bearers issued non- convertible redeemable debentures and certificates by alluring them of providing high rate of interest on the deposits received under different schemes. Furthermore, the informant alleged that he himself deposited amounts during the period between 2012 to 2014 and had also made recurring deposits with the Cooperative Society but then, before the date of its maturity, the company closed its offices in the State and thus, cheated him and many BLAPL No.5217 of 2022 Page 1 of 6 // 2 // others and in the process duped the depositors after having collected the money without any authority of the RBI or SEBI, whereafter, EOW P.S. Case No.16 of 2019 was registered.
3. Heard Mr. M. Kanungo, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. B. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the OPID.
4. It is contended by Mr. Kanungo that the petitioner was initially appointed as an Additional Director in the year 2010 and thereafter, as the Director of the company with effect from 29th December, 2011 and but resigned from that post on 30th November, 2013 and application in Form-32 under the Company Act, 1956 was filed before the competent authority and since then, he ceased to be holding any position as an office bearer of the company and as per the Board Directors' resolution, he has no authority or power to do engage himself in any activities on behalf of the company and as to the Cooperative Society, he was selected as its President on 24th May, 2013 but subsequently, new office bearers took over charge of the society on 25th February, 2016 with due intimation to the Central Cooperative Society, Department of Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India. It is further contended that the accused is in judicial custody from 25th July, 2021 and since then, he is extending cooperation in the investigation and as the charge sheet has already been filed in the month of November, 2021 and having regard to the fact that custodial interrogation is no more required and by being in detention, he has been adequately penalized, the petitioner should be enlarged on bail with any conditions as may be directed by the Court in the facts and circumstances of the case. Lastly, Mr. Kanungo contends that the petitioner should be granted bail notwithstanding the fact that he was denied earlier by the Court's order dated 22nd December, 2021 in BLAPL No.8017 of 2020, since no purpose would really be served by his further detention. While pleading so, Mr. Kanungo cited a decision of the Supreme Court in BLAPL No.5217 of 2022 Page 2 of 6 // 3 // the case of Sanjay Chandra Vrs. CBI AIR 2012 SC 830, wherein, the objective of bail has been held neither as punitive nor preventive.
5. On the contrary, Mr. Bhuyan submits that the petitioner was a Director of the alleged company and he along with other officials of the said company managed to collect an amount of Rs.2.71 crore and as a result, duped 319 investors which has so far been revealed from the investigation. It is also contended that preliminary enquiry divulged the fact that the company and society were engaged in such activities in Odisha and other States and cases against him are also pending in West Bengal and Jharkhand. According to Mr. Bhuyan, further investigation is currently in progress to find out the money trail and considering the above facts, the petitioner should not be released on bail. While seeking rejection of bail of the petitioner, Mr. Bhuyan referred to a decision of the Apex Court in Nimmagadda Prasad Vrs. CBI 2013 (7) SCC 466 contending that the petitioner having committed an economic offence, in the event of being enlarged, there is a reasonable apprehension of him tampering with the evidence which is already collected and also to be gathered during further investigation.
6. Admittedly, the involvement of the petitioner in the collection of the deposits is prima facie established after charge sheet having been filed against the petitioner. In course of investigation, the alleged company is said to have appropriated an amount of Rs.2.71 crore. According to the opposite parties, nearly 319 investors have been duped by the company. The petitioner was arrested nearly a year back i.e. 25th July, 2021. It is apprised to the Court that another accused was recently arrested on 6th March, 2022. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that other accused persons involved in the illicit activities of the company are still at large. In fact, the petitioner's bail was once refused by this Court in BLAPL No.8017 of 2021. By then, the investigation as BLAPL No.5217 of 2022 Page 3 of 6 // 4 // against the petitioner had been over as the charge sheet was filed on 20th November, 2021. The question is, whether, the petitioner, who has remained in custody close to a year should be enlarged on bail when further investigation is under way?
7. Admittedly, huge amount of money is alleged to have been collected by the company from the investors which is to the tune of Rs.2.71 crore. At the time of such collection in the year 2011-12, the petitioner was in the company initially as the Additional Director with effect from 19th November, 2010 and thereafter, as its Director. There is no denial to the fact that the petitioner was also involved in the affairs of a society which was registered in 2012 and as per own admission, he remained as its President till 25th February, 2016. In other words, the petitioner was involved with the activities of the company and society during the initial years of its business. Against the above backdrop, the Court is to consider, if the petitioner's plea for bail should be acceded to, when the investigation as against him stated to be over though further investigation is pending. The Court may under changed circumstances alone consider release of the petitioner on bail. No doubt, it has been held and observed by the Supreme Court in some decisions that stricter view should be taken with regard to economic offences. In so far as the petitioner is concerned, he has been in judicial custody close to a year by now. After the arrest of the petitioner in the month of July, 2021, charge sheet was submitted on 20th November, 2021 and barely a month thereafter, his request for bail was denied by this Court in BLAPL No.8017 of 2021. It has been drawn to the notice of the Court that the petitioner is aged about 60 years and suffering from diabetes and other ailments and there is no proper medical facility at Balasore for his treatment and on several occasions, he was shifted to the Endocrinology Department of SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack and considering his health condition, special treatment is promptly needed. It is claimed that no custodial BLAPL No.5217 of 2022 Page 4 of 6 // 5 // interrogation is presently required which has not been specifically disputed by the opposite party. The further investigation is continuing and in the meantime eight months have already elapsed. It appears that during the entire investigation, collection of money from 319 investors was unearthed. The investigation post submission of charge sheet against the petitioner is to continue for some time having regard to the nature of allegations and involvement of large number of investors. Having regard to the above facts and detention of petitioner in judicial custody for nearly one year and the fact that further investigation is under way since the month of November, 2021, the Court is of the considered view that the present accused who is a local inhabitant of Puri and currently suffering from different aliments in support of which medical papers were submitted earlier in BLAPL No.876 of 2020, he should be enlarged on bail with strict conditions and accordingly, it is ordered.
8. In the result, application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner stands allowed. As a necessary corollary, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail in connection with EOW P.S. Case No.16 of 2019 corresponding to C.T. Case No.3(C) of 2019 pending in the court of learned Presiding Officer, Designated Court (OPID Act), Balasore on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.1 lac with two solvent sureties for the like amount each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with other conditions, such as, he shall deposit a cash security of Rs.2 lac which is to remain in a fixed deposit subject to the terms fixed by the court below; shall submit property security of Rs.40 lac; shall not directly or indirectly induce, threaten or promise any witnesses connected to the case in any manner whatsoever, while on bail; shall remain present before the court below on each and every date of hearing of the case unless exemption is pleaded in special situations; shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court without its permission and to surrender his passport, if he has any, before the court forthwith; and to BLAPL No.5217 of 2022 Page 5 of 6 // 6 // cooperate in the further investigation and attend the IO as and when directed and in the event any of the above conditions is/are violated, it shall entail cancellation his bail.
(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge TUDU BLAPL No.5217 of 2022 Page 6 of 6