Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1146 (ORI)

Nrusingha Nath Nanda v. State of Orissa

2016-11-23

D.P.CHOUDHURY

body2016
JUDGMENT : D.P. CHOUDHURY, J. This is an application under section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with C.T. Case No. 03 of 2015 arising out of E.O.W., Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No.02 of 2015 pending in the court of learned 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Designated Court, Cuttack for the alleged offence punishable under sections 420/467/468/471/406/120-B of Indian Penal Code read with Sections 4, 5 and 6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 and Section 6 of the Odisha Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 2011. 2. The factual matrix leading to the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was the Director of M/s. Land India Real Estate Private Limited and M/s. Land India Assets Limited. It is alleged inter alia that the present petitioner, being Director of the said Companies along with other co-accused persons, induced the general public to make deposits in different scheme of the Companies so that the amount involved would be doubled. Pursuant to the assurance, gullible depositors deposited different amount of money with the hope of receiving double the amount of interest. 3. It is the further case of the prosecution that general public have deposited an amount of Rs.5,69,45,602.00 in M/s. Land India Real Estate Private Limited and Rs.2,81,89,900.00 in M/s. Land India Assets Limited. Although such amount have been collected, but the depositors did not get back their money as assured. When they went to the office of the aforesaid Companies, they found that the same have been closed. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted keeping further investigation open. 4. Mr. S.S. Ray, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was only the Public Relation Officer in M/s. Land India Real Estate Private Limited from 24.07.2012 to 20.01.2014 and only an employee of the above Company M/s. Land India Real Estate Private Limited. The principal accused Braja Sundar Mishra was actually engaged in pursuing the investors to deposit money in their Companies. According to him, the present petitioner was only an employee and receiving salary of Rs.30,000.00 per month. He further submitted that although there is allegation that Rs.8,51,35,502.00 has been deposited but actually in charge sheet the Investigating Officer has disclosed about deposit of Rs.1,30,32,600.00 in the Company by the depositors. According to him, the present petitioner was only an employee and receiving salary of Rs.30,000.00 per month. He further submitted that although there is allegation that Rs.8,51,35,502.00 has been deposited but actually in charge sheet the Investigating Officer has disclosed about deposit of Rs.1,30,32,600.00 in the Company by the depositors. He further submitted that charge sheet has been submitted and out of 54 charge sheeted witnesses, three have already been examined. Petitioner being local person, there is no chance of absconding and tampering prosecution witnesses. So, he submitted to take a lenient view to release the petitioner on bail with any condition as deemed just and proper. 5. Mr.Tripathy, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State submitted that the bail of accused Managing Director namely, Braja Sundar Mishra has already been rejected by this Court basing on the fact that the accused persons including the accused Managing Director Braja Sundar Mishra and the present petitioner being the Director have allured to deposit good amount of money in their Companies with the assurance to return the same with interest doubling the amount of the principal deposit and the gullible depositors being motivated by the present petitioner along with other accused persons, deposited amount in their Companies. Later the innocent depositors did not get back their money and finally found that the office of the Companies has been closed. He submitted that the present petitioner being the Director along with accused Managing Director Braja Sundar Mishra and other accused persons without returning money and without informing the depositors closed the office. He further submitted that if the petitioner is released on bail, there is every possibility of tampering with the prosecution witnesses as the further investigation is left open under section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. So, he submitted that in such economic offence the Court should adopt strict view to reject the application for bail. DISCUSSION: 6. He further submitted that if the petitioner is released on bail, there is every possibility of tampering with the prosecution witnesses as the further investigation is left open under section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. So, he submitted that in such economic offence the Court should adopt strict view to reject the application for bail. DISCUSSION: 6. No doubt in the decision of Chaman Lal v. State of U.P., reported in (2004)7 SCC 525 the Hon’ble Apex Court have laid down certain factors namely nature of accusation, severity of punishment in case of conviction and the character of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant, and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge which are to be kept in mind while deciding a bail application under section 439 Criminal Procedure Code. 7. It is also reported in (2013)7 SCC 439 , Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. Central Bureau of Investigation at paragraph-34 the Hon’ble Apex Court have been pleased to observe in the following manner:- “34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.” 8. With due respect to the above decision this Court is of the view that while deciding the bail application under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court should also oblivious to the fact that it is considering the bail in respect of economic offences because the economic offence is a class apart and need to be considered with a different approach. 9. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court the case in hand requires close scrutiny. On going through the statements of the witnesses it appears that the present petitioner was only the Director of M/s. Land India Real Estate Private Limited and M/s. Land India Assets Limited. 9. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court the case in hand requires close scrutiny. On going through the statements of the witnesses it appears that the present petitioner was only the Director of M/s. Land India Real Estate Private Limited and M/s. Land India Assets Limited. Laxmi Swain, Chandradhwaja Sethi, Tarini Pradhan, Bangali Pradhan, P. Jyotimala Patra, Banitarani Gouda, Damayanti Behera, Surya Behera and other witnesses have consistently stated that under the leadership of accused Managing Director namely, Braja Sundar Mishra the present petitioner along with other Directors who are co-accused persons have induced the depositors to invest money in their Companies with assurance of return double the amount of money in two years. The statements of the aforesaid witnesses also show that the main involvement of alluring the depositors was by the principal accused Braja Sundar Mishra who was the Managing Director of the said Companies, but the petitioner along with other Directors have only accompanied to principal accused to lure the depositors to deposit money. On the other hand, there is general allegation against the present petitioner about luring the innocent depositors to deposit money. No seized documents show about issuance of any document by the present petitioner to the depositors. 10. It is revealed from the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is no more in the Company and long after his resignation in 2014 the present case was investigated and he has already got Rs.17,00,000.00 to Rs.18,00,000.00 from the Company towards his salary. At the same time the written objection submitted by learned Additional Standing Counsel shows that Rs.18,83,000.00 has been diverted from the Company account to the personal account of the present petitioner. 11. From the foregoing discussion, it is clear that for a period of one and half years the petitioner was engaged in promoting M/s. Land India Real Estate Private Limited and in course of engagement, hired the depositors to deposit amount which is of course may be as part of his employment. But the intention of the petitioner to cheat the depositors is yet to be found out because the principal accused Braja Sundar Mishra is found to have prima facie intention from the beginning to cheat the gullible depositors. So, the case of accused Braja Sundar Mishra whose bail has been rejected is different from the present petitioner. But the intention of the petitioner to cheat the depositors is yet to be found out because the principal accused Braja Sundar Mishra is found to have prima facie intention from the beginning to cheat the gullible depositors. So, the case of accused Braja Sundar Mishra whose bail has been rejected is different from the present petitioner. At the same time when Rs.18,83,000.00 has gone from the Company account to the personal account of the present petitioner whether towards the salary or not, is yet to be decided during trial, but pending that issue such amount must be the amount of innocent depositors. 12. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties, regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above including the nature of allegation and punishment prescribed for the alleged offence and amount of money of depositors allegedly being in his personal account, let the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the court in seisin over the matter in the aforesaid case on condition that (i) The petitioner shall deposit Rs.18,83,000.00 with the trial court which would be kept in a fixed deposit to be renewed from time to time till disposal of the case; (ii) the petitioner shall appear in person before the court in seisin over the matter on each date of posting; (iii) he shall not directly or indirectly threaten or induce the prosecution witnesses in any manner whatsoever; (iv) he shall not commit any other offence while on bail; and (v) he shall appear before the Investigating Officer in this case as and when required for the purpose of further investigation, if any, as the Investigating Officer has submitted charge sheet keeping open for further investigation under section 173(8) Cr.P.C. The BLAPL is disposed of accordingly.