Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 94 (ORI)

Tirupati Panigrahi v. State of Orissa

2013-04-04

B.N.MAHAPATRA

body2013
Judgment B.N. Mahapatra, J. The present petition has been filed under Section 439, Cr. P.C. in connection with G.R. Case No.4657 of 2012, now pending in the Court of S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, arising out E.O.W. Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No.11 of 2012 with a prayer to release the petitioners on bail on any terms and conditions. 2. Petitioners in the present case are three in number. They are (1) Dr. Tirupati Panigrahi, Chairman, Hi-Tech Medical College and Hospital, Bhubaneswar and Managing Director, Hi-Tech Estates and Promoters Private Limited, Bhubaneswar, (2) Sri Tirupati Choudhury, Director of Hi-Tech Estates and Promoters Private Limited, Bhubaneswar, and (3) Sri Madhusudan Panigrahi, Director, Hi-Tech Estates and Promoters Private Limited, Bhubaneswar. 3. The petitioners are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 120-B/420/506/34, IPC. 4. Prosecution case in a nutshell is as follows: The informant Lokanath Das filed a written report before the Superintendent of Police, EOW on 23.12.2012 alleging that he had booked four numbers of homestead plots, two in his own name and other two in the name of his younger brother, Laxmidhar Das in the project of the Company, namely, “Kalyan Nagar, Phase-II, Sundarpada” in the year 2006 in response to the advertisement floated by Hi-Tech Estates and Promoters Private Ltd. for sale of plots. Rs.1,80,000/-(rupees one lakh eighty thousand) was paid for four plots, i.e., at the rate of Rs.45,000/-per plot, towards cost of the land and Rs.1,000/-for documentation. To this effect, the Company has entered into agreement with the informant as well as his brother. It is further alleged that the informant had deposited money in the name of Rajadhani Systems and Estates Private Limited, which is a sister concern of Hi-Tech Estates and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. When the informant did not get the land as promised in the agreement, he approached petitioner No.1-Dr.Tiriputi Panigrahi, Managing Director of the Company, who told that since land could not be purchased by the Company, he cannot do anything in this regard. Thereafter, the informant contacted the Directors of the Company, who have told him that the Company had some income tax problem for which they could not do anything for sale of the land. The informant was further told that the land could not be converted to homestead land since the same is Chaka land. Thereafter, the informant contacted the Directors of the Company, who have told him that the Company had some income tax problem for which they could not do anything for sale of the land. The informant was further told that the land could not be converted to homestead land since the same is Chaka land. Subsequently, the informant met Bandana Mohapatra, Manager, HRD of the Company, who told that the documentation of the land could not be made for which they could not give the land but she advised that the informant can take an apartment at Rs.15 to 20 lakhs. Finally, the petitioner was threatened and was forced to take back the money. Though the informant has paid all the instalments, the petitioners did not sell the land in question on the pretext of different pleas. On the basis of the written report of informant Lokanath Das, Superintendent in-charge, Economic Offence Wing (for short ‘EOW’), CID, CB, registered Economic Offence Wing PS Case No.11/2012 and directed to investigate the case. 5. Further case of the prosecution is that in the agreement entered into with the informant, it is clearly mentioned that the lands have been acquired at Kantilo, Orbals, Botanda and Hata Sahi, for Kalyan Vihar Phase-II project which has commenced in August, 2003 and was to be completed in the last part of 2008. The housing plots would be given in the area after completion of instalments. Investigation reveals that petitioners received money from the informant without having ownership over the land. They have collected money from the people at large by showing land of others. Many people like the informant paid the money, but were not provided with the plots. They cheated many innocent people. The Company after collecting money from the people has invested in construction of apartments in different places and sold them in high price to financially sound people. With the money collected for sale of plots, the petitioners have expanded their business by opening various profit making institutions and medical colleges. 6. Petitioners filed a Bail petition before the S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, which was rejected. Being aggrieved, the petitioners moved the Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar for bail under Section 439, Cr. With the money collected for sale of plots, the petitioners have expanded their business by opening various profit making institutions and medical colleges. 6. Petitioners filed a Bail petition before the S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, which was rejected. Being aggrieved, the petitioners moved the Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar for bail under Section 439, Cr. P.C. The Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar rejected the said Bail petition on the grounds that the offence alleged to have been committed is economic offence, petitioners misappropriated Rs.315 crores from the people and the investigation was in progress. 7. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. D. Nayak appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that it is not a case that Rajadhani Systems and Estates Pvt. Ltd. has taken the money and not given plot to anyone. In Kalyan Vihar Phase-II total 1456 applicants entered into agreement with the Company for sale of plots. Out of them, Company has allotted plots and completed registration in respect of 280 persons, and Company is required to allot land in the said project to 1176 persons who have completed payment and executed agreement but due to some problem registration could not be completed in respect of all those 1176 applicants. It is further submitted that Ac.93.451 decimal of land are available with the Company in respect of the said project. Company requires only Ac.52.859 decimal of land to allot plots to all the remaining 1176 persons. Since the Company could not keep its promise for delivery of the land and possession by way of proper conveyance, in the year 2010 the informant was intimated that due to several problems, the Company is not able to register plot immediately. The informant was requested to wait for 2-3 years, otherwise he can take refund of the money along with interest. Petitioners, who are the Chairman and Directors of the Company, are committed to their project and they have sufficient land in their possession which can be allotted to the interested persons. It was submitted that there was a search and seizure operation by the Income Tax Department in the premises of the company in the year 2005 and during such operation, the documents relating to the land in question were seized. Apart from that the company has faced difficulty with regard to consolidation operation and for making the land free hold. It was submitted that there was a search and seizure operation by the Income Tax Department in the premises of the company in the year 2005 and during such operation, the documents relating to the land in question were seized. Apart from that the company has faced difficulty with regard to consolidation operation and for making the land free hold. Since the land purchased by the company is chaka land, the said land cannot be sold out by fragmenting the same into sizeable plots except after conversion by the competent authority. Therefore, the lands could not be allotted to the applicants with whom agreements have been entered into. 8. To show bona fide of the petitioners, Mr. Nayak submitted that both the companies i.e. Hi-Tech Estates and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. and Rajdhani Systems and Estates Pvt. Ltd. made an appeal to the general public and to its applicants/customers through paper publication. In such paper publication, it was specifically mentioned that the company has 460 acres of land available with them which can be easily allotted to the interested customers, for which they have to wait for some period for delivery of the land and if any person is not desirous to wait till that period, he may give in writing for refund of the money with interest. 9. Mr. Nayak further submitted that no material is available to establish the commission of offences under Sections 120-B, 420/411/476/471/406, I.P.C. against the petitioners. In case of violation of contract between the Company and the customers i.e. in case of failure of contract at subsequent stage, the offence of cheating cannot be made out since the breach of contract simpliciter committed by the petitioners will not constitute any offence under Sections 420/406, I.P.C. and therefore, no criminal proceeding is maintainable against the petitioners. In support of his contention, reliance is placed on various judicial pronouncements which are referred to hereinafter. 10. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vrs. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2012 SC 840, Mr. Nayak submitted that grant or refusal to grant bail is the discretion of the Court. Grant/denial of bail is required to be examined in each particular case. Right to bail is not to be lost sight of merely because the sentiment of the community is against the accused. 11. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2012 SC 840, Mr. Nayak submitted that grant or refusal to grant bail is the discretion of the Court. Grant/denial of bail is required to be examined in each particular case. Right to bail is not to be lost sight of merely because the sentiment of the community is against the accused. 11. In written notes of submissions filed on behalf of the petitioners, it is stated that the petitioners are ready to give undertaking that they are committed to the project which they have started and they are duty bound as per the contract to allot plots to the customers as per their desire and if any customer does not want to take the land and wants for refund of his money, the Company is also under obligation to return the money to the customers/applicants with interest. Concluding his argument, Mr. Nayak made prayer for release of the petitioners on bail. 12. Mr. Narasingh, learned Addl. Government Advocate vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioners. It was submitted that investigation was taken up and during the course of investigation, it revealed that petitioner No.1 as the Managing Director and other petitioners as Directors have duped thousands of innocent investors and committed fraud in an organized manner. It has been prima facie established beyond reasonable doubt that floating of the alleged plotting schemes in the name and style “Hi-Tech Estates and Promoters Pvt. Ltd.” and “Rajdhani Systems and Estates Pvt. Ltd.” through public advertisements was with an dishonest intention making false promises and thereby induced people to part with their money which was subsequently misappropriated and converted to their own use. The present BLAPL relates to Kalyan Vihar Phase-II. During the course of investigation, it has come to light, in the similar fashion the petitioners have floated other four more projects, namely; (i) Bhagya Nagar, (ii) Kunja Vihar, (iii) Puspanjali Enclave and (iv) Kalyan Vihar and adopting similar modus operandi have cheated the persons who have made investment in response to their advertisement. 13. It was further submitted that the case diary reveals that when the informant Mr. Dash approached the petitioners for the lands in question, they took two excuses i.e. (i) the lands have not come to their hand, and (ii) Because of Income tax problem, they are undone. 13. It was further submitted that the case diary reveals that when the informant Mr. Dash approached the petitioners for the lands in question, they took two excuses i.e. (i) the lands have not come to their hand, and (ii) Because of Income tax problem, they are undone. A bare reading of the agreement entered into with the informant clearly reveals that on the date of execution of such agreement the company has acquired land and made them suitable for the purpose of proposed house sites under the name and style “Kalyan Vihar Phase-II”. From the agreement it further reveals that the petitioners induced the investors to part with their valuable consideration and because of such dubious designs the petitioners have gained wrongfully thereby causing wrongful loss to the investors. In respect of Kalyan Vihar Phase–II, the investigating agency has received 656 complaints. Since, the matter is under investigation and if at that stage the accused persons are allowed to be released on bail because of their standing in the society, they will interfere with the ongoing investigation and thereby subverting the course of justice. The Kalyan Vihar Project-II was to be completed by end of 2008. Though in the meantime almost five years have elapsed, the petitioners with ulterior motive have not handed over the plots. The subsequent assurance in the Court to the effect that the petitioners are ready to handover the plots or refund the money with interest is of no significance and the petitioners are liable to be prosecuted under the Criminal law. The Investigating Officer has received about 1379 complaints from different persons belonging to the different parts of the State in connection with five projects which are subject matters of various BLAPLs. On scrutiny of the documents, it is found prima facie that the accused persons received money from 17,181 persons with a promise to provide them residential plots. As yet 16,901 investors are not provided with plots in spite of repeated approaches and persuasions. 14. The petitioners have falsely and fraudulently represented before the prospective purchasers that the Hi-Tech Estates and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. and Rajdhani Systems and Estates Pvt. Ltd. had transferable right and title in respect of the Kalyan Vihar Phase-II project area and other projects. As yet 16,901 investors are not provided with plots in spite of repeated approaches and persuasions. 14. The petitioners have falsely and fraudulently represented before the prospective purchasers that the Hi-Tech Estates and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. and Rajdhani Systems and Estates Pvt. Ltd. had transferable right and title in respect of the Kalyan Vihar Phase-II project area and other projects. Kalyan Vihar Phase–II Project was started in August, 2003 and the Income Tax authorities seized the land documents on 30.9.2005, but despite this the petitioners, without intimating the same to the purchasers, went on collecting money. The complainant of this case also deposited the down payment and all his instalments with them after the seizure was made by the Income Tax authorities, i.e., on 30.12.2006. 15. It was submitted that the accused persons are involved in other economic offences cases relating to other projects. As per the agreement, Kalyan Vihar Scheme was started from November, 2000 and was to be over in December, 2004, but even after expiry of 9 years the majority of the investors have not got their lands. There is nothing wrong in the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge warranting interference of this Court. It is submitted that the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied upon by the petitioners are of no help to the petitioners as they are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand and in none of the cases the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the matter pending investigation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in several cases observed that the economic offences need to be visited by the Courts with a different approach, considering large scale public interest involved therein. In support of his contention, Mr. Narasingh relied upon some decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which are referred to hereinafter. Concluding his argument, Mr. Narasingh prayed for rejection of the petition. 16. From the rival contentions of both parties the only question that arises for consideration by this Court is whether the petitioners have made out a case for grant of regular bail to them on the basis of points urged by them. 17. Mr. Concluding his argument, Mr. Narasingh prayed for rejection of the petition. 16. From the rival contentions of both parties the only question that arises for consideration by this Court is whether the petitioners have made out a case for grant of regular bail to them on the basis of points urged by them. 17. Mr. D. Nayak, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has urged following points for grant of bail to the petitioners: (a) As per the allegations raised against the petitioners the dispute is of civil in nature and therefore, the criminal proceedings are not maintainable in law. At best, a case for breach of contract simpliciter may be made out which will not constitute offence punishable under Sections 420 and 406, I.P.C. (b) The lands under the project could not be sold and handed over to the applicants including the informant for the following reasons: (c) The petitioners are ready and willing to sell and deliver the land if the applicants shall wait for 2 to 3 years or it is open to them to get back their money with interest. (i) Due to facing of Income Tax problems; (ii) Lands purchased by the Company being chaka lands, the same cannot be sold out to the applicants by fragmenting into sizeable sub-plots unless they are converted into homestead lands. 18. The first contention of the petitioners is that the case is of civil in nature and the criminal proceedings are not sustainable in law. At best a case for breach of contract simpliciter may be made out i.e. failure to keep promises within the agreed period. But Offence of cheating cannot be made out. Placing reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Anil Mahajan vs. Bhor Industries Ltd. and another, (2005) 10 SCC 228 ; All Cargo Movers (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dhanesh Badarmal Jain and another, 2007 AIR SCW 6667; Nageswar Prasad Singh alias Sinha vs. Narayan Singh and another, 1998 (15) OCR (SC) 542; Srimati. Sabita Sundari Sahoo vs. State of Orissa, 2005(31) OCR 640 and in the case of Mukul Kumar Verma v. State of Orissa, 2010 (II) OLR 243 , it was submitted that breach of contract simpliciter committed by the petitioners will not constitute any offence under Sections 420 and 406, IPC. 19. Sabita Sundari Sahoo vs. State of Orissa, 2005(31) OCR 640 and in the case of Mukul Kumar Verma v. State of Orissa, 2010 (II) OLR 243 , it was submitted that breach of contract simpliciter committed by the petitioners will not constitute any offence under Sections 420 and 406, IPC. 19. Now let’s see whether the present case is a breach of contract simpliciter as contended by Mr. Nayak. This petition relates to the project Kalyan Vihar Phase-II. The petitioners in their own admission in the written note of submission have stated that agreements for sale of land in respect of Kalyan Vihar Phase-II Project have been entered into with 1456 applicants out of which the Company has already allotted plots and completed registration in respect of 280 persons and the company is required to allot plots to 1176 persons who have completed payments and executed agreement. 93.451 acres of land are available with the Company in respect of this project and after calculation of plots the company requires only 52.859 acres of land to distribute among 1176 persons. However, the land in question could not be transferred to the applicants as the land available with the Company are chaka lands which cannot be sold out by fragmenting said land into sizeable subplots unless they are converted to homestead land. From admission of the petitioners, it is clear that agreements have been entered into with various applicants on receiving full payment when the company was not in possession of genuine transferable/saleable homestead land. This prima facie shows that the action of the petitioners is not bona fide and the intention is to cheat the gullible investors from the very beginning. The petitioners through their companies entered into agreements with the innocent applicants to sell them plots without having the ownership of transferable/saleable right over the land in question. Thus, the petitioners have received full payment from the innocent applicants for sale of certain homestead plots to them which were in fact not in existence. 20. Further case of the prosecution is that public advertisements were floated with a dishonest intention making false promises and thereby induced public to part with their money which were subsequently misappropriated and converted to their own use. 20. Further case of the prosecution is that public advertisements were floated with a dishonest intention making false promises and thereby induced public to part with their money which were subsequently misappropriated and converted to their own use. On a bare reading of the agreement entered into with the informant reveals that on the date of execution of such agreement the company has acquired land and made them suitable for the purpose of proposed house site under the name and style Kalyan Vihar Phase –II. Such assurance made in the agreement is not correct and petitioners from the very beginning were aware that they did not have transferable/saleable homestead land still then they induced investors to part with their valuable consideration and because of such dubious designs the petitioners have gained wrongfully thereby causing wrongful loss to the investors. 21. Further case of prosecution is that the investigating agency has received 656 complaints and the matter is under investigation and if at that stage accused persons are allowed to be released on bail, taking advantage of their positions in the society they will interfere with the ongoing investigation and thereby subverting the course of justice. The Investigating Officer in the meantime has examined many victims. As per the statement made by the General Manager of the Company dated 5.1.2013, Rs.45,60,41,652/-has been collected in respect of the land under Kalyan Vihar Phase-II Scheme. The said amount has been siphoned away to the Bank accounts of Vigyan Bharati Charitable Trust, Vidya Sagar Charitable Trust and other charitable Trusts in which the accused persons are trustees. These trustees run various educational institutions in different parts of the State. The I.O. ascertained that the amount collected by the accused persons against the present project and against similar other eight projects has been invested or concealed by the accused persons which has not been traced so far. In all the bank accounts seized by the I.O. during the investigation of E.O.W. PS Case No.11/2012 there is only Rs.4.14 crores. Rest of the money of the investors is yet to be traced by the I.O. Further, during investigation of audited accounts of these two companies, it was revealed that a sum of Rs.315.96 crores was due to the investors, who had applied for getting plots on the assurance and clear indication by the petitioners that they had saleable/transferable right/interest in the lands in question. Though the project Kalyan Vihar Phase-II was started in August, 2003 and was to be completed by the end of 2008 and in the meantime 5 years have elapsed, the investors have not yet been provided with the plots. 22. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to some of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arun Bhandari v. State of U.P., (2013) 2 SCC 801 has held as under:- “26 At this stage, we may usefully note that sometimes a case may apparently look to be of civil nature or may involve a commercial transaction but such civil disputes or commercial disputes in certain circumstances may also contain ingredients of criminal offences and such disputes have to be entertained notwithstanding they are also civil disputes. In this context, we may reproduce a passage from Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar15: (SCC p. 754, para 8) “8. This Court has time and again drawn attention to the growing tendency of the complainants attempting to give the cloak of a criminal offence to matters which are essentially and purely civil in nature, obviously either to apply pressure on the accused, or out of enmity towards the accused, or to subject the accused to harassment. Criminal courts should ensure that proceedings before it are not used for settling scores or to pressurise parties to settle civil disputes. But at the same time, it should be noted that several disputes of a civil nature may also contain the ingredients of criminal offences and if so, will have to be tried as criminal offences, even if they also amount to civil disputes. (See G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P.16 and Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd.17)” 23. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramnarayan Popli v. CBI, (2003) 3 SCC 641 clearly negatives the contention of the accused petitioners regarding non-applicability of Sec. 420 and other allied sections. 24. In the case of Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT Delhi, (1999) 3 SCC 259 ; the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “10. It may be that the facts narrated in the present complaint would as well reveal a commercial transaction or money transaction. But that is hardly a reason for holding that the offence of cheating would elude from such a transaction. It may be that the facts narrated in the present complaint would as well reveal a commercial transaction or money transaction. But that is hardly a reason for holding that the offence of cheating would elude from such a transaction. In fact, may a cheatings were committed in the course of commercial and also money transactions. One of the illustrations set out under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code (illustration) is worthy of notice now: “(f) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to repay any money that Z may lend to him and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend him money, A not intending to repay it. A cheats.” 11. The crux of the postulate is the intention of the person who induces the victim of his representation and not the nature of the transaction which would become decisive in discerning whether there was commission of offence or not. The complainant has stated in the body of the complaint that he was induced to believe that the respondent would honour payment on receipt of invoices, and that the complainant realized later that the intentions of the respondent were not clear. He also mentioned that the respondent after receiving the goods had sold them to others and still he did not pay the money. Such averments would prima facie make out a case for investigation by the authorities.” 25. In the case of State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal and another, (1987) 2 SCC 364 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under : “The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even-handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and national interest.” 26. Taking into account the nature and magnitude of the offence and its ramification as alleged, it cannot be said that it is a case of breach of contract simpliciter committed by the petitioners and the same would not constitute any offence under Sections 420 and 406, I.P.C. On the other hand, apparently a prima facie case is made out which constitutes offence under Sections 420 & 406, IPC. 27. In view of the above judicial pronouncements relied upon by the petitioners in support of their contention that the present case is a breach of contract simpliciter and no offence under Sections 420 and 406, IPC has been committed by the petitioners, are of no help to the petitioners in the factual scenario described above. 28. The first difficulty for not transferring the land to the applicants as stated by the petitioners is that there were income tax problems because of seizure of land documents by the Search party during search and seizure operation. The specific case of the prosecution is that the project Kalyan Vihar Phase-II started in August, 2003. The Income tax authorities seized the land documents on 30.9.2005. But, the petitioners without intimating the fact of seizure of land documents by the Income Tax Department to the purchasers went on collecting money after such income tax search and seizure operation. The complainants also deposited the down payment with the petitioners after search and seizure operation conducted by the Income tax authorities i.e. on 30.12.2006 and deposited all instalments thereafter. Further case of the prosecution is that the petitioners have collected maximum amount after Income tax raid. Had the petitioners not been able to transfer/sell the land in question to the applicants due to income tax search and seizure operation, they should have intimated the same immediately after the income tax seizure and should not have collected the money/installments from the applicants. This prima facie shows that the petitioners with dishonest intention have cheated the public and misappropriated their money knowing very well that they were not in a position to provide land to the applicants. Hence, their plea of income tax raid for not transferring the land to the applicants is not tenable in law. 29. This prima facie shows that the petitioners with dishonest intention have cheated the public and misappropriated their money knowing very well that they were not in a position to provide land to the applicants. Hence, their plea of income tax raid for not transferring the land to the applicants is not tenable in law. 29. The second reason for not transferring the land in favour of the applicants is that the lands available with the Company are chaka lands which cannot be sold out to applicants by fragmenting the chaka land into sizeable sub-plots unless they are converted to homestead land. The declaration made in the agreement shows that the company had acquired lands and made those suitable for the purpose of proposed house site under the name and style of Kalyan Vihar Phase-II. After making such declaration, the subsequent plea of the petitioners that there are some chaka lands which could not be converted to homestead and chaka lands cannot be fragmented into sub-plots itself prima facie shows the dishonest intention of the petitioners. 30. The third contention of the petitioners that they are ready and willing to allot plots to the customers as per their desire and if any customer does not want to take the land and wants refund of his money, the company will also return the same to the customers/applicants with interest. Such an undertaking before this Court after the petitioners being faced with criminal liability would not wash away the culpability of the petitioners and that cannot be a ground for grant of bail to the petitioners. 31. As it reveals from the investigation made so far, thousands of innocent investors mostly belonging to lower and lower middle class were duped and their hard earned money were misappropriated by the petitioners. The investors are spread over throughout the State of Odisha and some of them are from out side the State. Since the petitioners did not sell the plots to the investors as per agreement, F.I.Rs and complaints were filed against the petitioners. In course of investigation, as stated above, many things have been unearthed against the petitioners showing their dishonest intention to collect money from the gullible investors and divert the same to other sister concern for their benefit. Since the petitioners did not sell the plots to the investors as per agreement, F.I.Rs and complaints were filed against the petitioners. In course of investigation, as stated above, many things have been unearthed against the petitioners showing their dishonest intention to collect money from the gullible investors and divert the same to other sister concern for their benefit. It is alleged that in the scrutiny of documents in respect of Kalyan Vihar Phase-II project it is found that the petitioners received money from 17181 investors with a promise to provide them residential plots, but till date 16901 investors are not provided with plots in spite of repeated requests and persuasions. The magnitude of dishonest intention is writ large. 32. The paper publications made by both the Companies, i.e., Hi-Tech Estates and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. and Rajdhani Systems and Estates Pvt. Ltd. in “The New Indian Express”, “The Samaja”, “The Samaya’, “The Dharitri” to the effect that the Companies have 460 acres of land available with them which can easily be allotted to the interested customers, if they wait for some period and if any person who is not desirous to wait for that period, he may give in writing for refund of money with interest. Such paper publication being dated 31.01.2013, i.e., after the F.I.Rs. were lodged against the petitioners, the petitioners cannot take advantage of the same to prove their bona fide. The claim of the petitioners that in the year 2010, the investors were intimated that due to several problems the Company is not able to register the plots immediately, is also of no help to the petitioners to prove their bona fide, as in the instant case, the Kalyan Vihar Phase-II project started in the year 2003 and it was to complete by July, 2008. Besides, as stated above, as per petitioners’ own admission they are not in possession of genuine transferable/saleable homestead land in question to sell the informant and other investors in pursuance of their own promise. 33. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in several cases observed that economic offences need to be visited by the Court with a different approach, considering the large scale public interest involved therein. The economic offenders strike a serious blow at the socio-economic structure of the country and consume the economic fibre of the society by financially exploiting the common people. 34. 33. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in several cases observed that economic offences need to be visited by the Court with a different approach, considering the large scale public interest involved therein. The economic offenders strike a serious blow at the socio-economic structure of the country and consume the economic fibre of the society by financially exploiting the common people. 34. In Prahalad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi, (2001) 4 SCC 280 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that ; “8..... While granting the bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character, behaviour, means and standing of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or the State and similar other considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail the legislature has used the words ‘reasonable ground for believing’ instead of ‘the evidence’ which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it (sic itself) as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.” 35. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dipak Shubhashchandra Mehta v. CBI and another, (2012) 4 SCC 134 , held as under:- “32. The Court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail, a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted, particularly, where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Though at the stage of granting bail, a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted, particularly, where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. The court granting bail has to consider, among other circumstances, the factors such as (a) the nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence; (b) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; and (c) prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. In addition to the same, the court while considering a petition for grant of bail in a non-bailable offence, apart from the seriousness of the offence, likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and tampering with the prosecution witnesses, have to be noted.” 36. Considering the nature of offence, its magnitude and ramification as alleged, materials available on record, the rival contentions of the parties and keeping in mind the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am not inclined to accept the petitioners’ prayer for bail. It is, however, made clear that the observations made above are in the context of prayer for bail and shall not be treated to be conclusive and determinative for the purpose of trial, if any. 37. Accordingly, the bail petition is rejected. Bail petition rejected.