Orissa High Court
Tarun Kyumar Baroi vs Republic Of India .... Opposite Party on 14 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL NO.9441 OF 2021
Tarun Kyumar Baroi .... Petitioner
Mr. D. Panda, Advocate
-versus-
Republic of India .... Opposite Party
Mr. Sarthak Nayak, Spl. P.P. (CBI).
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE D.DASH +-
ORDER
Order No. 14.09.2022
07. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement
(virtual/physical) mode.
2. This is the second journey of the Petitioner who is in custody in connection with SPE Case No.04 of 2014 corresponding to R.C. Case No.9(S)/2014-Kol pending on the file of learned Special C.J.M., CBI, Bhubaneswar running for commission of offence under Section- 420/120-B/34 of the IPC read with Section-4/5/6 of the Prize Chits & Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, in filing this application under Section-439 of the Cr.P.C. for reconsideration of the prayer for grant of bail to the Petitioner in the above mentioned case.
It may be stated here that the Petitioner having earlier moved this Court for his release on bail by filing BLAPL No.5296 of 2018, the same had been withdrawn.
3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has remained in custody for about six and half years and there is no substantial progress in the trial. He further submits that the allegations against the Petitioner that he being one of the Directors of the Company i.e. M/s. Asha Agro Equipment Industries India Limited having collected huge amount from the depositors, although he and Page 1 of 3 // 2 // others are said to have cheated them by not refunding their deposited amount, no prima facie case under Section-409 of the IPC comes in. He further submits that as by now only 11 witnesses have been examined, early conclusion of the trial is not expected. He also submits that for all the above, the Petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the provision contained in Section-436(A) of the Cr.P.C. In view of all these above; he urges for reconsideration of the prayer for grant of bail to the Petitioner.
4. Learned Special Public Prosecutor (CBI) opposes the move. According to him, the activities carried out by the Companies through this Director and others being wide ranged covering different areas and involving several persons becoming the victims of the plots hatched, it took considerable time to complete the investigation and submit the final charge-sheet. He submits that the trial having commenced all steps are being taken for early production of the witnesses for their examination. He submits that the materials have been collected to show that the Company being registered for carrying out several service activities connected with agriculture to make improvement in the field by enabling persons to purchase agro equipments and other agro based products; in the grab of the same, there has been floating of several schemes such as fixed deposits, recurring deposits etc. by alluring the depositors of high return and for attractions of the depositors, various ways have been planned as have revealed in course of investigation and the materials have come that all these activities were carried out at a great speed by engaging several persons with the purpose of collecting maximum deposits within the shortest possible time which mission of the Petitioner and others have succeeded. He further submits that other Directors namely, Parimal Biswas and Ranjit Santara having admitted their guilt have been convicted and thereafter Page 2 of 3 // 3 // when the trial was continuing against this Petitioner after some progress, he pleaded guilty, which at that stage has been rejected by the Trial Court. He further submits that the Petitioner then has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by filing an application under Section-482 of the Cr.P.C. and prayer therein is only to quash the order dated 24.07.2019; whereby the Trial Court has rejected the prayer of this Petitioner who then had pleaded guilty. It is submitted that with a designed purpose to prolong the matter and in the meantime go on praying for release on bail by citing the period of detention, said application under Section-482 Cr.P.C. filed before this Court is not moved for its disposal in accordance with law which clearly exposes the evil design behind the move. In view of all these above; he submits that at this stage, the prayer for reconsideration of the prayer for grant of bail to the Petitioner does not merit acceptance.
5. Considering the submissions made and on going through the materials on record as also viewing all other surrounding circumstances; further keeping in view the developments which have taken place, when also Petitioner's move before this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Section-482 of the Cr.P.C. is pending, I am not inclined to reconsider the prayer for grant of bail to the Petitioner, who is said to be involved in an Economic offences of quite considerable magnitude, when there also remains all the likelihood on the part of the Petitioner to flee from justice.
The file of CRLMC No. 3349 of 2019 be delinked for its listing before the assigned Bench for further order.
6. The BLAPL is accordingly dismissed.
Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
(D. Dash), Judge.
Narayan Page 3 of 3