Orissa High Court
Bishnu Prasad Sahu vs State Of Odisha (Opid) ........ Opp. ... on 2 September, 2022
Author: S.K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
BLAPL NO. 11612 Of 2021
An application under section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure in connection with E.O.W., Bhubaneswar P.S. Case
No.04 of 2021 corresponding to C.T. Case No.02 of 2021 pending
on the file of Presiding Officer, Designated Court, O.P.I.D. Act,
Cuttack.
----------------------------
Bishnu Prasad Sahu ........ Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Odisha (OPID) ........ Opp. Party
For Petitioner: - Mr. Yasobant Das
Senior Advocate
For Opp. party: - Mr. Bibekananda Bhuyan
Mr. J.P. Patra
----------------------------
P R E S E N T:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing: 16.08.2022 Date of Order: 02.09.2022
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.K. SAHOO, J. The petitioner Bishnu Prasad Sahu has filed this
application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure
(hereinafter 'Cr.P.C.') seeking for bail in connection with E.O.W.,
Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No.04 of 2021 corresponding to C.T.
Case No.02 of 2021 pending on the file of Presiding Officer,
// 2 //
Designated Court, O.P.I.D. Act, Cuttack in which charge sheet
has been submitted for offences punishable under sections 406,
420, 467, 468, 471 read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal
Code and section 6 of the Odisha Protection of Interests of
Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 2011 (hereafter
'O.P.I.D. Act') keeping the investigation open under Section
173(8) of Cr.P.C.
The petitioner moved for bail before the learned
Presiding Officer, Designated Court, O.P.I.D. Act, Cuttack which
was rejected as per order dated 23.06.2021.
2. On 18.02.2021 one Shubhranshu Shekhara Rauta,
resident of Khallingi, P.S.- Pattapur in the district of Ganjam
lodged the first information report before the Superintendent of
Police, Economic Offences Wing, Odisha, Bhubaneswar (hereafter
'E.O.W.') stating therein that during the year 2017, he came in
contact with the petitioner, who was the proprietor of M/s. Sahil
Enterprises, the lease holder of the Odisha Govt. owned
MARKFED Cold Storage at Patia in front of KIMS Medical College,
Plot No.17, Bhubaneswar. In course of acquaintance, the
petitioner along with some of his associates encouraged the
informant to invest in the ongoing potato business and Sea Food
Trading/Prawn business made by M/s. Sahil Enterprises, with
Page 2 of 25
// 3 //
assurance to return him the principal plus dividend on the next
15th November and that the said scheme could be renewed in
case of willingness of the informant to continue with the
business. Being allured with the scheme and believing the words
of the petitioner and others, the informant paid Rs.66,89,868/-
(rupees sixty six lakhs eighty nine thousand eight hundred sixty
eight) to the petitioner in installments during the period from
March 2017 to March 2018. It is further stated in the F.I.R. that
the aforesaid amount has been paid by the informant in
installments through NEFT from his bank accounts maintained
with S.B.I., Konkorada Branch and City Bank, MG Road Branch,
Bangalore and also from the account of one of his relatives
maintained with ICICI Bank, Bhubaneswar Branch. The amounts
were paid in the accounts of M/s. Sahil Enterprises maintained
with Union Bank of India, Patia Branch and HDFC Bank, Sriya
Talkies Square Branch, Bhubaneswar. It is stated that the
aforesaid amount was paid by the informant by availing loans
from different banks and till the date of lodging of F.I.R., he was
repaying the loan through EMI. It is further stated that initially
an agreement was executed by the petitioner in favour of the
informant during December 2017 and the petitioner had assured
to return at least minimum 30% annually on investment with
Page 3 of 25
// 4 //
potato business and flat 35% annually on investment with Sea
Food Trading/Prawn business. It is further stated that initially
during the period from June 2017 to December 2018, the
petitioner paid back an amount of Rs.7,82,950/- (rupees seven
lakhs eighty two thousand nine hundred fifty), which was
transferred to the S.B.I. account of the petitioner from the
accounts of M/s. Sahil Enterprises, but thereafter in spite of
repeated request made by the informant, the petitioner did not
repay the balance amount to him. It is further stated that the
petitioner had taken money from him in a deceitful manner and
he had the dishonest intention right from the very beginning of
the transaction to deceive the informant and M/s. Sahil
Enterprises also stopped running its business. It is further
stated that with dishonest intention, the petitioner had executed
false agreements with the informant and in that process, cheated
an amount of Rs.59,06,918/- (fifty nine lakhs six thousand nine
hundred eighteen). The informant also came to know that the
petitioner in similar manner cheated twenty one investors by
using fake/false documents and duped them to the tune of about
Rs.2.5 Crores and misappropriated the same.
On receipt of such F.I.R., the Superintendent of
Police, E.O.W., Bhubaneswar registered E.O.W., Bhubaneswar
Page 4 of 25
// 5 //
P.S. Case No.04 dated 18.02.2021 under Sections 406, 420,
467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with
Section 6 of the O.P.I.D. Act against the petitioner and directed
the Inspector, E.O.W. namely Pradipta Panigrahi to take up
investigation of the case.
3. During course of investigation, it was ascertained
that the proprietorship firm, namely, M/s. Sahil Enterprises in
which the petitioner was the proprietor, was registered under
sub section (5) of section 25 or sub-section (2) of section 26 of
the Odisha Value Added Tax Act, 2004 and was assigned with
Identification Number vide TIN No. 21485505503 w.e.f.
16.05.2016 by Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bhubaneswar
III Circle. The registered office address of the firm was Plot
No.D/65, Essen Residency, Raghunathpur, P.O.-Patia,
Bhubaneswar and the petitioner had taken lease from Odisha
Govt. owned MARKFED Cold Storage at Patia, situated in front of
KIMS Medical College, Plot No. 17, Bhubaneswar having 5000 MT
capacity multi commodity cold storage on monthly lease rent
basis for eleven months w.e.f. 01.03.2019 by executing an
agreement in between Managing Director, MARKFED, Odisha,
Bhubaneswar and M/s. Sahil Enterprises through Prop. Bishnu
Prasad Sahu (petitioner). The above deed of agreement was
Page 5 of 25
// 6 //
made with M/s. Sahil Enterprises basing on a tender process
floated by MARKFED to let out its cold storage on monthly rent
basis for storing of potato, fruits, vegetables etc. The
investigation further revealed that before expiry of eleven
months lease period, the petitioner had breached the terms of
the agreement and did not pay the rent etc. as per the
agreement and left the premises of cold storage with his bags
and baggage without any intimation to the first party MARKFED.
When it came to the notice of the MARKFED on 23.09.2019, the
authorities of MARKFED terminated the agreement made with
the petitioner and took possession of the cold storage on
18.12.2019.
During course of investigation, the investigating
officer found that twenty five investors have been duped/cheated
by the petitioner to the tune of Rs.2.86 Crores (rupees two
crores eighty six lakhs) approximately. The investors were
examined and relevant documents towards their investments in
the firm of the petitioner were seized. The investigation further
revealed that many other investors were duped/cheated by the
petitioner and they were yet to be examined and the relevant
documents were yet to be seized apart from relevant documents
to be seized from different officers. The investigating officer sent
Page 6 of 25
// 7 //
requisitions to Union Bank of India, HDFC Bank, Kotak Mahindra
Bank, Axis Bank with a request to freeze the accounts in the
name of M/s. Sahil Enterprises and its proprietor i.e. the
petitioner herein. The investigating officer also collected the
information from FIU, India, New Delhi regarding information of
accounts in the name of M/s. Sahil Enterprises and its proprietor
and the same is under verification. The investigation further
revealed that pursuant to the requisition made by the I.O, an
amount of Rs.2,13,244/- (rupees two lakhs thirteen thousand
and two hundred forty four) has been freezed by Axis Bank,
Oswara Branch, Mumbai, Maharastra bearing A/c
No.920020070585327, which stands in the name of M/s.
Jagannath Enterprises being represented by its proprietor i.e. the
petitioner herein. The I.O further noted in the charge sheet that
he is yet to gather information regarding investment of money
by the petitioner from banks and other sources as well as
information from the IGR, Cuttack regarding immovable
properties of the petitioner and M/s. Sahil Enterprises for
submission of proposal for attachment.
The investigation further revealed that the I.O
received information from Managing Director, Orissa State Co-
operative Marketing Federation Ltd., Bhubaneswar through Sri
Page 7 of 25
// 8 //
Santanu Kumar Mallick, Manager (Legal), MARKFED, Odisha vide
letter no.2787/L-28/2020-21 dtd. 19.07.2021 regarding lease of
Cold Storage at Patia which proved that the petitioner had taken
lease of cold storage w.e.f. 01.03.2019 for storing of potato,
fruits and vegetable etc. by execution of an agreement, but in
the year 2017 and onwards, the petitioner being the proprietor
M/s Sahil Enterprises had issued cold storage receipts in the
name of M/s. Sahil Enterprises being represented by him as its
proprietor, as the lease holder of MARKFED Cold Storage to the
informant and other investors though at that time he had no
authorisation to use the cold storage situated at Patia. Since
then, the petitioner was inducing the public with the assurance
that, he had taken lease of cold storage from MARKFED, Govt. of
Odisha on monthly rent basis for storing of potato, fruits,
vegetables etc. and that whosoever would invest money in his
ongoing potato business, they would get an interest of 30%
annually. The petitioner also assured to return 35% flat annually
on the investment with Sea Food Trading/Prawn Business. The
petitioner had paid back only Rs.7,82,950/- (rupees seven lakhs
eighty two thousand nine hundred fifty) to the informant as
against his deposit of Rs.66,89,868/- (rupees sixty six lakhs
eighty nine thousand eight hundred sixty eight). The petitioner
Page 8 of 25
// 9 //
failed to return the residuary amount despite repeated demand
and thus defalcated a sum of Rs.59,06,618/- (rupees fifty nine
lakhs six thousand six hundred eighteen) of the petitioner and he
also gave assurance to the investors to return the principal plus
dividend during the next six months and the said scheme would
be renewed in case of willingness of the investors to continue
with the business. The I.O further found that in this way, the
investors have invested money believing the ongoing potato
business made by M/s Sahil Enterprises as true. The
investigation further revealed that the petitioner had prepared
forged and fabricated cold storage receipt book in the name of
M/s. Sahil Enterprises, MARKFED Cold Storage with dishonest
intention to cheat the investors deliberately and issued such
receipts to the investors with his seal and signature, which was
used as genuine. On being so induced by the petitioner, during
March 2017 to 2018, the informant paid a sum of Rs.66,89,868/-
(rupees sixty six lakhs eighty nine thousand eight hundred sixty
eight) in toto in instalments towards investment being
transferred through NEFT from his accounts and the accounts of
his relatives maintained in S.B.I. and ICICI Bank to the account
of M/s. Sahil Enterprises maintained in UBI, Patia Branch and
HDFC Bank, Sriya Talkies Square, Bhubaneswar.
Page 9 of 25
// 10 //
The I.O during investigation found that the investors
had executed agreements with the petitioner being the
proprietor of M/s. Sahil Enterprises regarding investment of
money in his ongoing Sea Food Trading/Prawn business. In the
said agreement, it is clearly mentioned that, if any, dispute arose
between the parties, then the affected party would take shelter
before the Court of law.
The investigation further revealed that in the same
manner, the petitioner had cheated so many investors by using
fake/false documents and collected huge amount to the tune of
about Rs.2.86 Crores in between 2017 onwards. The I.O. further
found that the petitioner being the proprietor of M/s. Sahil
Enterprises was returning the interest/dividend to the investors
for only one to two years towards the investment in potato and
sea food business of M/s. Sahil Enterprises and thereafter, he did
not return any interest/dividend to the investors towards their
investment by taking some plea or other. After several requests,
the petitioner issued cheques of HDFC Bank etc. in the name of
some investors towards their investing money, but those
cheques were bounced due to insufficient funds in his account,
for which the investors tried to contact the petitioner over
telephone so many times, but he did not respond to their
Page 10 of 25
// 11 //
telephone calls and fled away from the locality by switching off
his mobile phones by misappropriating crores of rupees of the
innocent investors.
The investigation further revealed that in this fashion
with dishonest intention, right from the very beginning since
2017 during which period he had not obtained any lease of cold
storage of MARKFED, Odisha, the petitioner had executed forged
and fabricated agreements and granted cold storage receipts of
cold storage at Patia and used the same as genuine and cheated
several innocent investors with assurance of return towards their
investment in potato business/sea food trading business and
collected crores of rupees and misappropriated the same.
The investigation further revealed that the petitioner
being the proprietor of M/s. Sahil Enterprises has defaulted in
returning the investment made to him and also failed to render
service for which the deposits were made by the investors and as
such, the petitioner is responsible for the management of the
day to day affairs of the Firm and is liable for the offence under
section 6 of the OPID Act, 2011.
During course of investigation, it came to light that
the petitioner had registered one company styled as M/s. Sahil
Ventures Pvt. Ltd. before ROC, Cuttack and the address of the
Page 11 of 25
// 12 //
registered office of the company has been mentioned as C/o.
Jyotirsmita Das, Plot No.D/65, Essen Residency, Raghunathpur,
Bhubaneswar, Orissa and he is the Managing Director of the said
company.
The investigation further revealed that pursuant to
the requisition of the I.O., the Reserve Bank of India, Odisha,
Bhubaneswar (hereinafter 'R.B.I.') had informed that M/s. Sahil
Enterprises and M/s. Sahil Ventures Pvt. Ltd. are not registered
as a non-banking financial institution with Reserve Bank of India
under section 45-IA of the R.B.I. Act, 1934 to commence or
carry on the business of a Non-Banking Financial Institution as
defined under section 45-1A(1) of the said Act and R.B.I. had not
authorised these entities to collect/accept deposits from the
public.
The I.O. on due analysis of the documentary and oral
evidence collected during investigation came to the conclusion
that the petitioner being the proprietor of M/s. Sahil Enterprises
prepared the forged and fabricated documents i.e., cold storage
receipts as he was the lease holder of cold storage of MARKFED,
Odisha, Bhubaneswar since 2017 and executed false agreements
with dishonest intention to cheat the informant and twenty four
investors and by utilising such forged documents as genuine, the
Page 12 of 25
// 13 //
petitioner collected huge amount to the tune of Rs.2.86 crores
(rupees two crores eighty six lakhs) from the informant and
other investors for the purpose of investing in the ongoing potato
business and sea food business and thereafter, he did not return
any interest/dividend to the investors towards their investment
by taking some plea or other and even after several requests,
the petitioner had issued cheques in the names of some of the
investors towards their deposits, but those cheques were
bounced due to insufficient of funds in the account of the
petitioner, for which the investors tried to contact him over
telephone many times, but he did not respond to their telephone
calls and fled away from the locality by switching off his mobile
phone by misappropriating crores of rupees of the innocent
investors.
The investigating officer found prima facie evidence
against the petitioner and his company under sections 406, 420,
467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with
section 6 of the O.P.I.D. Act and accordingly, he submitted first
charge sheet on 19.08.2021 against the petitioner keeping
further investigation open under section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. to
ascertain about the complicity of other persons, tracing the
Page 13 of 25
// 14 //
money trail, examining other investors and witnesses and
seizure of incriminating documents.
4. Mr. Yasobanta Das, learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the petitioner contended that as per the F.I.R.
version, an agreement was executed between the petitioner and
the informant in December 2017, but no such agreement has
been annexed to the F.I.R. and though it is stated that the
petitioner has returned Rs.7.82 lakhs between June 2017 and
December 2018 and there was no payment thereafter, but all the
same, the F.I.R. was lodged only on 18.02.2021. Learned
counsel further argued that the dispute between the parties is
basically civil in nature and recovery of money as on today is
barred by law of limitation under Articles 24 and 25 of the
Schedule of Limitation Act, 1963 and till date, no civil proceeding
has been initiated by the informant and thus, the informant is
attempting to use the criminal procedure for recovery of his time
barred money, which is an abuse of the process of law. It is
further submitted that law is no more res integra that in case of
grant of bail, the Court has to come to a prima facie finding
whether an offence is made out or not. Learned counsel further
contended that the petitioner is a permanent resident of
Keonjhar district and there is no chance of absconding and he is
Page 14 of 25
// 15 //
in judicial custody for a period of sixteen months and therefore,
the bail application of the petitioner may be favourably
considered. In support of such contention, he has placed reliance
on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of
Dillip Singh -Vrs.- State of Madhya Pradesh and another
reported in (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 779, Anil
Mahajan -Vrs.- Bhor Industries Ltd. and another reported
in (2005) 10 Supreme Court Cases 228, Commissioner of
Police and others -Vrs.- Devendra Anand and others
reported in 2019 SCC Online Supreme Court 996, Sanjay
Chandra -Vrs.- Central Bureau of Investigation reported in
(2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases 40, Dataram Singh -Vrs.-
State of uttarpradesh and another reported in (2018) 3
Supreme Court Cases 22.
Mr. Bibekananda Bhuyan, learned Special Counsel
appearing for the State of Odisha in O.P.I.D. Act matters being
ably assisted by Mr. J.P. Patra, Advocate vehemently opposed
the prayer for bail and submitted that it is a case of economic
offence and investigation is under progress and huge amount of
public money was collected under false assurance which are yet
to be recovered and in case the petitioner is enlarged on bail,
there is every chance of tampering with the evidence and
Page 15 of 25
// 16 //
therefore, the petitioner should not be released on bail at this
stage.
5. This is a case of economic offence. Economic
offences are always considered as grave offences as it involves
deep rooted conspiracy and huge loss of public fund. Such
offences are committed with cool calculation and deliberate
design solely with an eye on personal profit regardless of the
consequence to the community. It brings about total imbalance
in the economy of the country, which has the effect of making
lives of people economically weaker and miserable. Such
offences are treated worse than murders. 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 such a case and those
aspects must squarely be dealt with by the Court while passing
an order on bail applications. (Ref: State of Gujarat -Vrs.-
Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal and others reported in (1987)
2 Supreme Court Cases 364, Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy
-Vrs.- C.B.I. reported in (2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases
439 and Aswini Kumar Patra -Vrs.- Republic of India
reported in (2021) 84 Odisha Criminal Reports 1.
Page 16 of 25
// 17 //
Before dealing with the rival contentions raised, let
me take a bird's eye view to the citations placed by the learned
counsel for the petitioner. In the case of Dillip Singh (supra), it
is held as follows:-
"4. It is well settled by a plethora of decisions of
this Court that criminal proceedings are not for
realization of disputed dues. It is open to a Court
to grant or refuse the prayer for anticipatory
bail, depending on the facts and circumstances
of the particular case. The factors to be taken
into consideration, while considering an
application for bail are the nature of accusation
and the severity of the punishment in the case
of conviction and the nature of the materials
relied upon by the prosecution; reasonable
apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or
apprehension of threat to the complainant or the
witnesses; reasonable possibility of securing the
presence of the accused at the time of trial or
the likelihood of his abscondance; character,
behavior and standing of the accused, and the
circumstances which are peculiar of the accused
and larger interest of the public or the State and
similar other considerations. A criminal court,
exercising jurisdiction to grant bail/anticipatory
bail, is not expected to act as a recovery agent
to realise the dues of the complainant, and that
too, without any trial."
Page 17 of 25
// 18 //
In the case of Anil Mahajan (supra), it is held as
that mere failure of a person to keep up promise subsequently, a
culpable intention right at the beginning that is, when he made
the promises cannot be presumed. A distinction has to be kept in
mind between mere breach of contract and the offence of
cheating. It depends upon the intention of the accused at the
time of inducement. The subsequent conduct is not the sole test.
Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution
for cheating unless fraudulent, dishonest intention is shown at
the beginning of the transaction. The substance of the complaint
is to be seen. Mere use of the expression "cheating" in the
complaint is of no consequence.
In the case of Devendra Anand (supra), it is held
that the case involves a civil dispute and for settling a civil
dispute, which is nothing but an abuse of process of law.
In the case of Sanjay Chandra (supra), it is held as
follows:-
"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been
laid down from the earliest times that the object
of bail is to secure the appearance of the
accused person at his trial by reasonable
amount of bail. The object of bail is neither
punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty
must be considered a punishment, unless it can
Page 18 of 25
// 19 //
be required to ensure that an accused person
will stand his trial when called upon. The courts
owe more than verbal respect to the principle
that punishment begins after conviction, and
that every man is deemed to be innocent until
duly tried and duly found guilty.
22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated
that detention in custody pending completion of
trial could be a cause of great hardship. From
time to time, necessity demands that some un-
convicted persons should be held in custody
pending trial to secure their attendance at the
trial but in such cases, 'necessity' is the
operative test. In this country, it would be quite
contrary to the concept of personal liberty
enshrined in the Constitution that any person
should be punished in respect of any matter,
upon which, he has not been convicted or that in
any circumstances, he should be deprived of his
liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper
with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the
most extraordinary circumstances.
23. Apart from the question of prevention being
the object of a refusal of bail, one must not lose
sight of the fact that any imprisonment before
conviction has a substantial punitive content and
it would be improper for any Court to refuse bail
as a mark of disapproval of former conduct
whether the accused has been convicted for it or
not or to refuse bail to an un-convicted person
Page 19 of 25
// 20 //
for the purpose of giving him a taste of
imprisonment as a lesson."
In the case of Dataram Singh (supra), it is held as
follows:-
"5. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is
required to be adopted by a judge, while dealing
with an application for remanding a suspect or
an Accused person to police custody or judicial
custody. There are several reasons for this
including maintaining the dignity of an Accused
person, howsoever poor that person might be,
the requirements of Article 21 of the
Constitution and the fact that there is enormous
overcrowding in prisons, leading to social and
other problems as noticed by this Court in In
Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, In
re (2017) 10 SCC 658."
It is the settled law that detailed examination of
evidence and elaborate discussion on merits of the case should
not be undertaken while adjudicating a bail application. The
nature of accusation, the severity of punishment in case of
conviction, the nature of supporting evidence, the criminal
antecedents of the petitioner, if any, reasonable apprehension of
tampering with the evidence of the witnesses, apprehension of
threat to the witnesses, reasonable possibility of securing the
presence of the petitioner at the time of trial and above all the
Page 20 of 25
// 21 //
larger interests of the public and State are required to be taken
note of by the Court while granting bail. Law is well settled that
in a given case, civil proceedings and criminal proceedings can
proceed simultaneously if prima facie essential ingredients of an
offence or offences are disclosed from the complaint petition or
first information report or charge sheet. In many criminal
proceeding, there would be some element of civil nature.
Therefore, it cannot be universally said that where there is civil
litigation between the same parties, criminal proceeding cannot
be initiated with regard to same subject. An unscrupulous
litigant, apprehending criminal action against him, would be
encouraged to frustrate the course of justice and law by filing
civil suits with respect to the documents intended to be used
against him after the initiation of criminal proceeding or in
anticipation of such proceeding. This case is not one of such
criminal case which is overwhelmingly and predominantly civil in
character. There are enough criminal elements in the accusation
and it cannot be said that the proceeding has been instituted at a
belated stage just to cause great hardships, humiliation,
inconvenience and harassment to the petitioner particularly
when no civil case is pending between the parties as stated at
the Bar.
Page 21 of 25
// 22 //
6. Adverting to the contentions raised by the learned
counsel for the respective parties, it appears from the case
records that the petitioner being the proprietor of M/s. Sahil
Enterprises collected more than Rs.2.86 crores of rupees from 25
investors including the informant and misappropriated the same
as per first charge sheet.
The fact remains that the investors who have
invested huge amount of their hard earned money or after
availing loan from different sources and were dreaming to get
high rate of interest/dividend, have been duped by the petitioner
on the basis of false promises. Though the petitioner had taken
lease of cold storage w.e.f. 01.03.2019 for storing of potato,
fruits and vegetable etc. by execution of an agreement, but in
the year 2017 and onwards, the petitioner being the proprietor
M/s Sahil Enterprises had issued cold storage receipts in the
name of M/s. Sahil Enterprises being represented by him as its
proprietor, as the lease holder of MARKFED Cold Storage to the
informant and other investors though at that time he had no
authorisation to use the cold storage situated at Patia. False
agreements and cold storage receipts were issued in favour of
the investors.
Page 22 of 25
// 23 //
During course of hearing of the bail application, the
learned Special Counsel for the State furnished a list of investors
with investment amount under the signature of D.S.P., E.O.W.
Bhubaneswar from which it revealed that thirty three investors
invested Rs.5,18,93,868/-(Rupees five crores eighteen lakhs
ninety three thousand eight hundred sixty eight), they have
received back Rs.98,28,265/- (rupees ninety eighty twenty eight
thousand two hundred sixty five) and the outstanding amount is
Rs.4,20,67,203/- (rupees four crores twenty lakhs sixty
thousand two hundred three). When a query was made to the
learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner is
ready and willing to deposit such money in the trial Court, on
instruction, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner is not having good financial condition to deposit
the amount as reflected in the list furnished by the learned
special counsel appearing for the State of Odisha. On a query
being made, the I.O. submitted the status report of investigation
indicating therein that letters have been sent to Bank of India,
HDFC Bank to furnish the bank statement for verification and
that of verified documents have been sent to HWB, Rasulgarh,
Bhubaneswar for examination and opinion, which has been
received and it is in affirmative. With the available oral and
Page 23 of 25
// 24 //
documentary evidence, I am prima facie satisfied that the
ingredients of the offences under which charge sheet has been
submitted are made out against the petitioner.
7. Without detailed examination of evidence on record
and elaborate discussions on merits of the case, but considering
the nature and gravity of the accusation, the nature of
supporting evidence, availability of prima facie case against the
petitioner, severity of punishment likely to be imposed in case of
conviction and since huge amount of public money has been
misappropriated and the investors have been cheated of their
hard earned money which is as of now is more than four crores
on the false assurance of giving them high interest/dividend for
which agreements were executed by the petitioner with them
and when further investigation of the case is under progress and
many more vital links of the case are yet to be unearthed, since
it is an economic offence and reasonable apprehension of
tampering with the evidence cannot be ruled out at this stage
and above all in the larger interest of society, I am not inclined
to release the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the bail application sans merit and
hence stands rejected.
Page 24 of 25
// 25 //
Before parting, I would like to place it on record by
way of abundant caution that whatever has been stated
hereinabove in this order has been so said only for the purpose
of disposing of the prayer for bail made by the petitioner.
Nothing contained in this order shall be construed as expression
of a final opinion on any of the issues of fact or law arising for
decision in the case which shall naturally have to be done by the
trial Court at the appropriate stage of the trial.
.................................
S.K. Sahoo, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 2nd September 2022/PKSahoo Page 25 of 25