Judgment : Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. 1. The petitioner in the CRM dated October 27, 2014 in custody from August 23, 2014 in connection with CBI Special Case RC – 04/S/2014, CBI, SPE, SCB, SIT, Kolkata under ss.420/409/406/120B IPC is seeking bail under s.439 Cr.P.C. 2. The petitioner’s a previous s.439 bail prayer was rejected by this court on September 25, 2014 in CRM No.14434 of 2014. Mr. Mitra appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the changed circumstances are filing of the charge-sheet on November 17, 2014 and a considerable longer period of detention. 3. Mr. Mitra has submitted as follows. After arrest the petitioner was taken to police custody on more than one occasion. After custodial interrogation the investigating agency prayed for his judicial custody. Hence from September 1, 2014 he is in judicial custody and since then there has been no further interrogation. The principal accused in the case was granted statutory bail. He was facing accusation of cheating a large number of poor investors. There was no accusation that the petitioner had cheated the investors, or induced the investors to invest with the private Saradha concern, or misappropriated the invested money. The accusation rather was that he had assured the principal accused of managing SEBI and RBI. The SEBI had rejected approval to the scheme in 2013. The accusations were wild. There was no accusation of loss of State money or commission of any economic offence. The arrest itself, having been made without any reason, was wrongful. The petitioner is being detained in custody as a punitive measure, not because his further detention is necessary. The principles stated in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40 are squarely applicable to the case. Article 21 entitles the petitioner to bail on any condition the court thinks appropriate. The CBI has been making baseless wild allegations against the petitioner. 4. Mr. Raghavacharyulu, the Special CBI Public Prosecutor in the case, has submitted as follows. In Subrata Chattoraj v. Union of India & Ors., (2014) 8 SCC 768 given on May 9, 2014 the Supreme Court ordered transfer of the ongoing investigation of the case to the CBI. The Supreme Court said that it was a case for making investigation keeping in view a larger conspiracy angle. The further investigation of the case is in progress. The Supreme Court said that it was a case for making investigation keeping in view a larger conspiracy angle. The further investigation of the case is in progress. The magnitude of the offences committed by the accused and the yet to be detected likely large number of people in position can be fathomed from the fact that around 25 lakh claimants are the victims of the conspiracy executed through the several concerns of the principal accused, one Sudipto Sen, who had written a letter dated April 6, 2013 disclosing, inter alia, the petitioner’s involvement. A large number of bogus companies were floated. Materials reveal the petitioner’s intimate involvement in the larger conspiracy. The petitioner possessing foreign management degree from a famous international institute, according to the materials, assured the principal accused of managing SEBI and RBI officials. Investigation for unfolding roles of SEBI and RBI officials is in progress. Hence, having regard to the materials revealing the petitioner’s intimate involvement in the larger conspiracy for regular monthly consideration and the magnitude of the larger conspiracy that is yet to be unfolded fully, the petitioner’s detention in custody is essentially needed. His release on bail is bound to cause a serious harm to the ongoing further investigation. And the gravity of the offences and the strength of the prosecution case do not justify his release on bail. 5. We have examined the case diary materials and the things in the charge-sheet. Having regard to the decision of the Supreme Court whereby the ongoing investigation was transferred to the CBI that was asked to investigate the larger conspiracy angle and the materials revealing the petitioner’s involvement, we are of the opinion that the petitioner’s release on bail is likely to cause a serious harm to the ongoing further investigation of the case whose larger conspiracy hatched and executed by a large number of people, according to the prosecution, is yet to unfurl fully. 6. On the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that the filing of the charge-sheet and the longer period of detention should not entitle the petitioner to bail. It seems to us that his detention in custody is essentially required in the interest of the ongoing further investigation aiming the larger conspiracy. Besides, the gravity of the offences and the strength of the prosecution case also seem to be relevant. It seems to us that his detention in custody is essentially required in the interest of the ongoing further investigation aiming the larger conspiracy. Besides, the gravity of the offences and the strength of the prosecution case also seem to be relevant. The principles stated in Sanjay Chandra are unexceptionable. But they are not to be applied ignoring the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. For these reasons, we dismiss the CRM. Certified xerox.