Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 656 (ORI)

Indu Dewan v. Republic of India (C. B. I. )

2016-08-18

D.P.CHOUDHURY

body2016
JUDGMENT : D.P. Choudhury, J. “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of change and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!” The aforesaid quotation of Patrick Henry has been well observed in the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in (2012) 5 SCC 690 ; Rashmi Rekha Thatoi and another v. State of Orissa and others. Thus, the liberty is a call of the day, without which life is meaningless. At the same time sky has limit and the liberty can be also scaled out by parameters. This is an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner read with Section 437 (1) of Cr.P.C. to grant bail to her as her bail has been refused by the learned Sessions Judge, Khurda in Bail Application No.1588 of 2015. FACTS 2. The factual matrix leading to the case of the petitioner is that she being a woman was summoned by the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter called ‘CBI’) to produce certain documents before the CBI on 12.8.2015 at Bhubaneswar in connection with S.P.E. No.42 of 2014. Petitioner appeared and furnished documents. Thereafter she was further summoned under Section 41 of Cr.P.C. to appear before the CBI. She co-operated the investigation by obeying their notices and submission of documents before the CBI for fruitful investigation. However, she also filed one anticipatory bail before this Court vide Anticipatory Bail Application No.14208 of 2015 and after hearing it was rejected vide order dated 16.10.2015. 3. It is the further case of the petitioner that on 17.10.2015 petitioner appeared before the CBI for the purpose of interrogation but she was arrested on that day for the commission of the offences under Sections 120-B, 294, 341, 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 34 of IPC read with Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. It is alleged, inter alia, that at the time of arrest the petitioner was neither informed of the reasons of arrest nor handed over a copy of the arrest memo as required by law, nor her kin was informed. She moved the bail before the Special C.J.M., CBI, at Bhubaneswar but it was rejected on 30.10.2015. It is alleged, inter alia, that at the time of arrest the petitioner was neither informed of the reasons of arrest nor handed over a copy of the arrest memo as required by law, nor her kin was informed. She moved the bail before the Special C.J.M., CBI, at Bhubaneswar but it was rejected on 30.10.2015. Against such order the bail was moved before the learned Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar vide Bail Application No.1855 of 2015. Learned Sessions Judge was also pleased to reject the said Bail Application. 4. On the other hand, the CBI has placed the chargesheet stating therein about the role of the present petitioner in the case that M/s. Artha Tatwa Group of Companies (hereinafter called “A.T. Group of Companies”) with the false promise to gullible depositors of getting higher returns in terms of interest and incentives under various schemes floated by A.T. Group of Companies and availability of cheap flats and plots under various projects of such group of Companies. The principal accused Pradeep Kumar Sethy who is the Managing Director of A.T. Group of Companies neither returned the amount due to the depositors nor allotted any flats. Thereafter co-accused Pradeep Kumar Sethy and other Directors of the said Company closed the Companies. 5. It is the case of the Investigating Agency that coaccused Pradeep Kumar Sethy and Jyotiprakash Joyprakash formed a Company, namely, M/s. Systematix Entertainment & Media Pvt. Ltd. with the object to produce, purchase, sale, import, export and deal in cine films, tele-films etc. all over India and aboard and utilized the money of A.T. Group of Companies. On 31.12.2010 the said Company changed the said Media Company to M/s. Artha Tatwa Food Mart Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter called “A.T. Food Mart Pvt. Ltd.”) with its prime objective to carry on business of preparing, packaging, bottling and trading of food, cane food and beverages. While M/s. Systematix Entertainment & Media Pvt. Ltd. was continuing, on 27.7.2010 the said Company produced a serial “Command Force” under self finance scheme and it was proposed to Doordarshan to telecast same. In the proposal present petitioner has submitted undertaking stating that she was the Director of M/s. Systematix Entertainment & Media Pvt. Ltd. although she was never a Director of the said Company. After telecast of 52 episodes, an amount of Rs.3,56,74,940/- was sanctioned for payment. In the proposal present petitioner has submitted undertaking stating that she was the Director of M/s. Systematix Entertainment & Media Pvt. Ltd. although she was never a Director of the said Company. After telecast of 52 episodes, an amount of Rs.3,56,74,940/- was sanctioned for payment. At first the money was received with an amount of Rs.2,25,60,881/- in the HDFC Bank, the banker of M/s. Systematix Entertainment & Media Pvt. Ltd. from Doordarshan and the present petitioner being the authorized signatory diverted the total amount of Rs.73,67,000/- out of such money to her personal account and the account of her husband Vikram Dewan by issuing cheques. Balance of Rs.1,23,99,580/- received from Doordarshan was paid to A.T. Food Mart Pvt. Ltd. It is also stated that further Rs.82,30,000/- was illegally diverted to the personal account of the petitioner and her husband. It is alleged that present petitioner being in conspiracy with principal accused Pradeep Kumar Sethy diverted the money from the A.T. Group collected from the gullible depositors and made the serial “Command Force” and thereafter got it telecast by Doordarshan. Not only this but also the petitioner got the sale proceed of the serial diverted to her personal account, to the account of her sister Preeti Bhatia and her husband Vikram Dewan. So, the CBI allegedly made out a prima facie case against her. CBI also claims that M/s. Candyfloss Media & Entertainment being the Company of the present petitioner and her sister, good amount of money has been trailed to such Company. She being the authorised signatory of A.T. Food Mart Pvt. Ltd. has released the said amount deposited in the account of Company to her personal account. CBI also claims that further investigation is pending for which the Court may take different view. SUBMISSIONS 6. Mr. Jayant Das, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner while supporting the bail petition submitted that the statement of Deepnarayan Singh who was working for Pradeep Kumar Sethy as submitted by CBI cannot be relied upon being same to be shifting illegal action of forgery upon the petitioner instead of co-accused Pradep Kumar Sethy. The statement of the Bank Manager, HDFC Bank also does not spell out anything against the petitioner. The role of the petitioner is not related to Chit fund scam. The statement of the Bank Manager, HDFC Bank also does not spell out anything against the petitioner. The role of the petitioner is not related to Chit fund scam. She is an artist and has no role with economic offences which has been portrayed by the CBI to linger the custody of the petitioner. 7. It is further submitted by Mr. Das, learned Senior Advocate that the allegation of the CBI against the present petitioner is misconceived and misdirected and she has not committed any economic offence. Mr. Das vehemently submitted that no trial has commenced yet although the charge-sheet has been submitted on 11.2.2016. Due to non-joining of the concerned Presiding Officer petitioner is suffering in jail custody without trial. He cited the decision reported in (2012) 4 SCC 134 (Dipak Subhashchandra Mehta Vs. CBI & another), where it has been held that the petitioner’s liberty cannot be curtailed and the same shall not be allowed to languish in the jail custody without any trial. 8. It is submitted by Mr. Das, learned Senior Advocate that co-accused having been released on interim bail by the Hon’ble Apex Court and she being the Director of the said production Company, case of the present petitioner should also be at par with the case of co-accused Preeti Bhatia and accordingly should be released on bail with any condition as deemed fit and proper. 9. Mr. Das, learned Senior Advocate stated that in the meantime charge-sheet has already been submitted and in the charge-sheet the allegations were mainly against Preeti Bhatia and Vikram Dewan, the husband of the petitioner and there was no any money transaction between the present petitioner and her husband. There was no serious allegation against the present petitioner towards complicity with commission of offence in the charge-sheet. Apart from this, it is alleged that the petitioner’s husband is a Pilot and her elder child appeared in the Class-X ICSE Examination while petitioner is in custody. Due to her absence in the family there is irrepairable loss to the daughter and husband. She has also taken the plea that her parents are very old and her younger sister is handicapped. On such humanitarian point of view lenient view should be taken against her. Due to her absence in the family there is irrepairable loss to the daughter and husband. She has also taken the plea that her parents are very old and her younger sister is handicapped. On such humanitarian point of view lenient view should be taken against her. It is also stated that petitioner is also suffering from back pain and mental pressure and in fact the offences alleged are not made out prima facie because of the fact that money received in the business of the petitioner from Door Darshan is not the money trailed from M/s. A.T. Group of Companies. Since she is a woman having not received any money from A.T. Group of Companies but she is a Producer of the serial “Command Force” and involved in Film Industries where her absence is felt always, she should be released on bail with any condition as deemed fit and proper. 10. Per contra, Mr. A.K. Bose, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India submitted that the grounds of the bail taken by petitioner are all fabricated and fabulous because the investigation into the case has been taken up by the CBI on the direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court. When the matter has already been dealt with according to the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the interim bail of co-accused Preeti Bhatia has been only considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the case of present petitioner for regular bail should not be considered leniently but on the parameters required for the economic offences committed. 11. Mr. K.C. Mishra, learned Counsel for CBI submitted that CBI has been directed by the Hon’ble Apex Court to investigate the criminal cases against Ponzi Firms including the A.T. Group Firms. According to him the matter has been reinvestigated by the CBI because earlier the investigation has been made by the Police against the principal accused Pradeep Sethy who is admittedly the Managing Director of A.T. Group of Companies. Since there is gross diversification of funds of the public and gullible depositors who have not got the dues being cheated by the Ponzi Firms and the fact that the money has trailed from the A.T. Group of Companies to different Companies having wide ramifications, the Hon’ble Supreme Court have directed for investigation by CBI. 12. Mr. Since there is gross diversification of funds of the public and gullible depositors who have not got the dues being cheated by the Ponzi Firms and the fact that the money has trailed from the A.T. Group of Companies to different Companies having wide ramifications, the Hon’ble Supreme Court have directed for investigation by CBI. 12. Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the CBI submitted the documents of the CBI with further argument that the statement of the witnesses recorded during investigation amply show that gullible investors have been cheated by A.T. Group of Companies headed by co-accused Pradeep Sethy. He also submitted that the statement of Deepnarayan Singh and Reetish Nandan Padhy amply disclose that the money has been trailed from the A.T. Group of Companies to the Media Companies of the present petitioner, Preeti Bhatia and Pradeep Kumar Sethy and out of that money different serials were telecast, the amount received from such serial and activities of the Company have gone to the Company as well as to the personal account of Preeti Bhatia and present petitioner. So, the master mind of the entire conspiracy of cheating, money trailing, forgery is the present petitioner. He submitted that the interim bail granted by Hon’ble Apex Court to Preeti Bhatia is on a separate footing but the case of present petitioner should not be decided on the same footing because the role of the present petitioner is vicious and the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard should not be accepted by the Court. 13. Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the CBI further submitted that the cases being of economic offence have been taken up seriously by the Hon’ble Apex Court and for that CBI has been entrusted to investigate the case. Although chargesheet has been submitted but the investigation is kept open by the CBI. After submission of charge-sheet, the CBI has also prepared the copies and ready to commence the trial. As soon as P.O. joins the trial of the case would commence. Since the investigation is open and there is necessity for interrogation of the present petitioner, with further accused to be apprehended, the CBI strongly objects the release of the petitioner at this juncture. 14. Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the CBI submitted that in earlier occasion this Court have rejected the anticipatory bail of the present petitioner. Since the investigation is open and there is necessity for interrogation of the present petitioner, with further accused to be apprehended, the CBI strongly objects the release of the petitioner at this juncture. 14. Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the CBI submitted that in earlier occasion this Court have rejected the anticipatory bail of the present petitioner. Moreover, the bail application of coaccused Preeti Bhatia has been rejected by this Court and CBI relies upon such decisions of this Court. The present petitioner falsely projected her as Director of one M/s. Systematix Entertainment & Media Pvt. Ltd. which is sister concern of A.T. Group of Companies and got the serial “Command Force” telecast being produced by such Company. Accordingly, Doordarshan made 2/3rd payment for such serial to the Company M/s. Systematix Entertainment & Media Pvt. Ltd. which later on changed to M/s. Artha Tatwa Food Mart Pvt. Ltd. where coaccused Pradeep Kumar Sethy and Jyotiprakash Joyprakash were the Directors. It is submitted that when serial “Command Force” was produced under the banner of M/s. Systematix Entertainment & Media Pvt. Ltd. under self-same finance scheme, the present petitioner falsely introducing herself as the Director of such M/s. Systematix Entertainment & Media Pvt. Ltd. made undertaking as Director of such Company for payment of sanctioned amount of Rs.3,56,74,940/- in the name of Company M/s. Systematix Entertainment & Media Pvt. Ltd. This M/s. Systematix Entertainment & Media Pvt. Ltd. being sister concern of A.T. Group of Companies subsequently converted to another Company, namely, Artha Tatwa Food Mart Pvt. Ltd. having bank account maintained at HDFC Bank, Mumbai. Mr. Mishra submitted that after payment of Rs.2,25,60,881/- into the bank account maintained at HDFC Bank, Mumbai of A.T. Food Mart Pvt. Ltd., said amount was frozen and the petitioner being authorized signatory of A. T. Food Mart Pvt. Ltd. could not draw the money. So, she forged the signatures of Pradeep Kumar Sethy and Jyotiprakash Joyprakash who are the Directors of A.T. Food Mart Pvt. Ltd. through one Deepnarayan Singh one of her employee, opened another account of A.T. Food Mart Pvt. Ltd. in the State Bank of India, Juhu, Mumbai to which Rs.1,23,99,580/- was credited by Doordarshan towards payment for the rest of the amount of serial “Command Force”. 15. Mr. 15. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the CBI submitted that from such A.T. Food Mart Pvt. Ltd. account the money has been trailed at the instance of the present petitioner to her personal account, account of her husband Vikram Dewan and to the account of her sister Preeti Bhatia and to the account of partnership firm, namely, M/s. Candyfloss Media & Entertainment floated by the present petitioner and her sister Preeti Bhatia who is co-accused in this case. So, in sum and substance submitted by the CBI that the present petitioner having major role in diversification of the fund to her firm, her and to her relatives from A.T. Group of Companies. He submitted that the money collected by A.T. Group from the gullible depositors have been very diligently siphoned off or trailed to different Companies at the instance of principal accused Pradeep Kumar Sethy and other accused persons including the present petitioner. According to him, the conspiracy of cheating, forgery, criminal misappropriation and money trailing are prima facie made out against the present petitioner for which the bail of the present petitioner should be refused. He submitted that further investigation kept open would be ineffective if bail is granted to the present petitioner. DISCUSSIONS ON LAW ON REGULAR BAIL 16. Before going to discuss on materials, it is pertinent to discuss on principles of law on regular bail. It is reported in 1980 CRI. L.J. 426 SC; Niranjan Singh and another v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others, that Court should avoid elaborate documentation of merits while dealing with an application for bail. While the court deal the application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. it cannot go to the details of the evidence to find out whether the evidence would be sufficient in establishing the real of the accused as it is not a relevant consideration at this stage to find out probability or improbability of the prosecution case terminating the conviction of the accused or not. On the other hand, detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits is not desirable and should be avoided while passing orders on bail applications. 17. It is also reported in 1991 (3) CRIMES 858 ; State of Orissa v. Jagannath Patel & another, where it is held that it is only necessary the satisfaction about prime facie case and not an exhaustive exploration of merits in the order itself. 17. It is also reported in 1991 (3) CRIMES 858 ; State of Orissa v. Jagannath Patel & another, where it is held that it is only necessary the satisfaction about prime facie case and not an exhaustive exploration of merits in the order itself. So, the Court is not dragged into significant details and in an arena of conjectures in the prosecution case. 18. It is reported in (2008) 3 SCC 775 ; Gobarbhai Naranbhai Singala v. State of Gujarat and others, where Their Lordships observed as follows: “22. The third reason given by the High Court for grant of bail, that the respondent had been in jail for the last more than 2 years, is equally untenable in view of the observations made by this Court in State of U.P. vs. Amarmani Tripathi, [(SCC p.32, para 19) "19. …… ’14. ….. the condition laid down under Section 437(1)(i) is sine qua non for granting bail even under Section 439 of the Code. In the impugned order it is noticed that the High Court has given the period of incarceration already undergone by the accused and the unlikelihood of trial concluding in the near future as grounds sufficient to enlarge the accused on bail, in spite of the fact that the accused stands charged of offences punishable with life imprisonment or even death penalty. In such cases, in our opinion, the mere fact that the accused has undergone certain period of incarceration (three years in this case) by itself would not entitle the accused to being enlarged on bail, nor the fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future either by itself or coupled with the period of incarceration would be sufficient for enlarging the appellant on bail when the gravity of the offence alleged is severe and there are allegations of tampering with the witnesses by the accused during the period he was on bail." xxx xxx xxx 24. This Court in Amarmani Tripathi had held that while considering the application for bail, what is required to be looked is, (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail”. 19. It is also reported in (2013) 7 SCC 452 ; Central Bureau of Investigation v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy where Their Lordships observed at para-34: “34. While granting 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 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/State and other similar considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the Legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the Court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy 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”. 20. It is also reported in (2013) 7 SCC 439 ; Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. Central Bureau of Investigation, where Their Lordships observed at paragraphs-34, 35 and 36: “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. 35. 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. 35. While granting 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 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/ State and other similar considerations. 36. Taking note of all these facts and the huge magnitude of the case and also the request of CBI asking for further time for completion of the investigation in filing the charge sheets, without expressing any opinion on the merits, we are of the opinion that the release of the appellant at this stage may hamper the investigation. However, we direct CBI to complete the investigation and file the charge sheets within a period of 4 months from today. Thereafter, as observed in the earlier order dated 05.10.2012, the appellant is free to renew his prayer for bail before the trial Court and if any such petition is filed, the trial Court is free to consider the prayer for bail independently on its own merits without being influenced by dismissal of the present appeal”. 21. It is reported in (2013) 7 SCC 466 ; Nimmagadda Prasad v. Central Bureau of Investigation, where Their Lordships observed at paragraphs-23, 24 and 25: “23. Unfortunately, in the last few years, the country has been seeing an alarming rise in white-collar crimes, which has affected the fiber of the country’s economic structure. Incontrovertibly, economic offences have serious repercussions on the development of the country as a whole. In State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal, (1987) 2 SCC 364 this Court, while considering a request of the prosecution for adducing additional evidence, inter alia, observed as under: (SCC p.371, para 5) “5.....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. 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….” 24. While granting 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 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/State and other similar considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the Legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the Court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy 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. 25. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as a grave offence affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country”. 22. It is reported in (2014) 16 SCC 508 ; Neeru Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, where Their Lordships observed at Paragraphs-9 and 10: “9. 22. It is reported in (2014) 16 SCC 508 ; Neeru Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, where Their Lordships observed at Paragraphs-9 and 10: “9. In this context, a fruitful reference be made to the pronouncement in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598 , wherein this Court has observed that grant of bail though discretionary in nature, yet such exercise cannot be arbitrary, capricious and injudicious, for the heinous nature of the crime warrants more caution and there is greater change of rejection of bail, though, however dependant on the factual matrix of the matter. In the said decision, reference was made to Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi, (2001) 4 SCC 280 and the Court opined thus: (Sudarshan Singh case, SCC p.602, para 4). "(a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind not only the nature of the accusations, but the severity of the punishment, if the accusation entails a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations. (b) Reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being tampered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant should also weigh with the court in the matter of grant of bail. (c) While it is not expected to have the entire evidence establishing the guilt of the accused 20 beyond reasonable doubt but there ought always to be a prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. (d) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail, and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail." 10. In Chaman Lal V. State of U.P., (2004) 7 SCC 525 , the Court has laid down certain factors, namely, the 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”. 23. 23. It is reported in 2015 (13) SCALE 808; Gautam Kundu vs. Manoj Kumar, Assistant Director, Eastern Region, Directorate of Enforcement, (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) Govt. of India where Their Lordships observed at para-36: “36. We do not intend to further state the other facts excepting the fact that admittedly the complaint was filed against the appellant on the allegation of committing offence punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA. The contention made on behalf of the appellant that no offence under Section 24 of the SEBI Act is made out against the appellant, which is a scheduled offence under the PMLA, needs to be considered from the material collected during the investigation and further to be considered by the competent court of law. We do not intend to express ourselves at this stage with regard to the same as it may cause prejudice the case of the parties in other proceedings. We are sure that it is not expected at this stage that the guilt of the accused has to be established beyond reasonable doubt through evidences. We have noted that in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2013) 7 SCC 439 , this Court has observed that 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 country. In Union of India v. Hassan Ali Khan, (2011) 10 SCC 235 , this Court has laid down that what will be the burden of proof when attempt is made to project the proceeds of crime as untainted money. It is held in the said paragraph that allegations may not ultimately be established, but having been made, the burden of proof that the monies were not the proceeds of crime and were not, therefore, tainted shifted on the accused persons under Section 24 of the PML Act, 2002. The same proposition of law is reiterated and followed by the Orissa High Court in the unreported decision of Smt. Janata Jha v. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, (CRLMC No. 114 of 2011 decided on December 16, 2013). The same proposition of law is reiterated and followed by the Orissa High Court in the unreported decision of Smt. Janata Jha v. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, (CRLMC No. 114 of 2011 decided on December 16, 2013). Therefore, taking into account all these propositions of law, we feel that the application for bail of the appellant should be seen at this stage while the appellant is involved in the economic offence, in general, and for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA, in particular.” 24. From the foregoing discussions, it is clear that consideration of bail in economic offences should not be in the same footing as of other offences. Moreover, the parameters of the bail as contained in the decision of Neeru Yadav (supra) are the guiding force to consider the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. In the series of cases by CBI where the magnitude of the economic loss to the society and the individual have no magnitude but indefinite. The Court should be cautious in granting bail. It is true that liberty of a person must be visualized where the concept of bail is discussed. In this regard, the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court cannot be lost sight of. It is reported in Neeru Yadav (supra) at para-16:- “16. xxx We are not oblivious of the fact that the liberty is a priceless treasure for a human being. It is founded on the bed rock of constitutional right and accentuated further on human rights principle. It is basically a natural right. In fact, some regard it as the grammar of life. No one would like to lose his liberty or barter it for all the wealth of the world. People from centuries have fought for liberty, for absence of liberty causes sense of emptiness. The sanctity of liberty is the fulcrum of any civilized society. It is a cardinal value on which the civilisation rests. It cannot be allowed to be paralysed and immobilized. Deprivation of liberty of a person has enormous impact on his mind as well as body. A democratic body polity which is wedded to rule of law, anxiously guards liberty. But, a pregnant and significant one, the liberty of an individual is not absolute. It cannot be allowed to be paralysed and immobilized. Deprivation of liberty of a person has enormous impact on his mind as well as body. A democratic body polity which is wedded to rule of law, anxiously guards liberty. But, a pregnant and significant one, the liberty of an individual is not absolute. The society by its collective wisdom through process of law can withdraw the liberty that it has sanctioned to an individual when an individual becomes a danger to the collective and to the societal order. Accent on individual liberty cannot be pyramided to that extent which would bring chaos and anarchy to a society. A society expects responsibility and accountability from the member, and it desires that the citizens should obey the law, respecting it as a cherished social norm. No individual can make an attempt to create a concavity in the stem of social stream. It is impermissible. Therefore, when an individual behaves in a disharmonious manner ushering in disorderly things which the society disapproves, the legal consequences are bound to follow. At that stage, the Court has a duty. It cannot abandon its sacrosanct obligation and pass an order at its own whim or caprice. It has to be guided by the established parameters of law”. 25. With due respect to the said decision, it is clear that there cannot be liberty without orderly society and there cannot be order without systemized restraint. Therefore, Article 21 of the Constitution speaks that life and liberty cannot be curtailed without the procedure established by law. So, the liberty and the restraint should be balanced. In view of the magnitude of economic offence now-a-days the orderly society or the society with order should be preferred to personal liberty. However, keeping in mind of the principle of law as enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the argument advanced by both the Counsels, let the case be analyzed to consider the bail. DISCUSSIONS ON MATERIAL ON RECORD 26. The investigation by CBI emanates from the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Writ Petition (Civil) No.401 of 2013; Subrata Chattoraj Vs. Union of India and others, and Writ Petition (Civil) No.413 of 2013; Alok Jena Vs. Union of India & others,. DISCUSSIONS ON MATERIAL ON RECORD 26. The investigation by CBI emanates from the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Writ Petition (Civil) No.401 of 2013; Subrata Chattoraj Vs. Union of India and others, and Writ Petition (Civil) No.413 of 2013; Alok Jena Vs. Union of India & others,. Their Lordships while considering about the role of different chit fund Companies were pleased to observe that there are several diversification of funds collected from the poor investors by the chit fund Companies in the State of Orissa, West Bengal and Tripura. In para-28 of that order it has been observed about the Case No.44 dated 7.2.2013 under the provision of Sections 420/120-B of I.P.C. read with Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 against M/s. Artha Tatwa Group of Companies and at para-34 Their Lordships directed the CBI to conduct further investigation into such cases against 44 Companies including the A.T. Group of Companies in spite of the investigation made by the State Police. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the CBI that by virtue of the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court the CBI entered into the investigation of cases against the A.T. Group of Companies. There is specific direction in the said order that CBI has to investigate against those Companies because of nature of scam and its inter-state ramifications with money trailing in which these Companies are indulged in. Their Lordships have also been pleased to observe that the scam of this magnitude going on for years unnoticed and unchecked, is suggestive of a deep rooted apathy if not criminal neglect on the part of the regulators who ought to do everything necessary to prevent such fraud and public loot. So, the CBI is investigating the cases relating to A.T. Group of Companies being specifically ordered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 27. It is the allegation of the CBI that present petitioner having made conspiracy with principal accused Pradeep Kumar Sethy diversified the funds from A.T. Group of Companies to the fund of M/s. Systematix Entertainment & Media Pvt. Ltd. which later converted to A.T. Food Mart Pvt. Ltd. Subsequently money was siphoned off to her, her sister and her husband’s personal account. The CBI produced the copies of the statements recorded and documents seized in support of their contentions. The CBI produced the copies of the statements recorded and documents seized in support of their contentions. It appears that crores of rupees have been collected by A.T. Group of Companies from the gullible investors with the assurance to return the money with double interest and to allot the plots in their favour. But the poor people neither got back their invested money nor got any plot. 28. The statement of Chittaranjan Bihari, who happens to be working in the office of the Registrar of Companies, Cuttack shows that A.T. Group of Companies has several sister concern Companies. M/s. Artha Tatwa Food Mart Pvt. Ltd. is one of the sisters Company of said A.T. Group of Companies. It is also revealed from his statement that on 5.3.2009 A.T. Food 26 Mart Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated in the name and style of M/s. Systematix Entertainment & Media Pvt. Ltd. Finally on 31.12.2010 such Company changed its name to M/s. Artha Tatwa Food Mart Pvt. Ltd. So, co-accused Pradeep Kumar Sethy and Jyotiprakash Joyprakash were the Directors of the said Company. From the statement of Subhasish Debata who was working as Assistant Manager of HDFC Bank, Bhubaneswar shows that A.T. Food Mart Pvt. Ltd. has its account maintained in that Bank and on different dates the present petitioner being the authorized signatory to operate the accounts has issued cheques to her personal account and to her husband Vikram Dewan’s personal account. It may not be out of place to mention that A.T. Food Mart Pvt. Ltd. is a sister concern of A.T. Group and money collected under A.T. Group has been maintained in A.T. Food Mart Pvt. Ltd. as revealed from materials. It is clear that between 4.5.2012 to 4.1.2013 Rs.2,25,60,881/- has been transmitted to A.T. Food Mart Pvt. Ltd. Not only this but also from A.T. Food Mart Pvt. Ltd. Rs.30,85,000/- has been transferred between 15.6.2012 to 9.11.2012 to the account of the petitioner. Moreover, Rs.17 lakhs has been credited to the account of her husband Vikram Dewan. 29. It is clear that between 4.5.2012 to 4.1.2013 Rs.2,25,60,881/- has been transmitted to A.T. Food Mart Pvt. Ltd. Not only this but also from A.T. Food Mart Pvt. Ltd. Rs.30,85,000/- has been transferred between 15.6.2012 to 9.11.2012 to the account of the petitioner. Moreover, Rs.17 lakhs has been credited to the account of her husband Vikram Dewan. 29. It is also revealed from the statements of Mukul Verma, Chandan Kumar Das, Deepnarayan Singh and Madhukar Balaram Rohekar that on 27.7.2010 M/s. Systematix Entertainment & Media Pvt. Ltd. made proposal to Doordarshan through petitioner who falsely projected her as Director of the said Company for telecast of serial “Command Force” and in 2011 due to change of name of such Company to M/s. Artha Tatwa Food Mart Pvt. Ltd. agreement was executed between Prasar Bharati and present petitioner who represented A.T. Food Mart Pvt. Ltd and serial was telecast by Doordarshan. The money towards telecast of serial “Command Force” were received from Doordarshan in 2012 to the account of A.T. Food Mart Pvt. Ltd. in its HDFC Bank, Mumbai. But in January, 2013 the account of A.T. Food Mart Pvt. Ltd. in HDFC Bank was frozen. So, the present petitioner introducing falsely her as the Director of A.T. Food Mart Pvt. Ltd. requested the SBI at JVPD Branch, Mumbai to open the account, she forced one Deepnarayan Singh to forge the signature of co-accused Pradep Kumar Sethy and Jyotiprakash Joyprakash who were the Directors of A.T. Food Mart Pvt. Ltd. and an account was opened there. It is also revealed that Rs.3,56,74,940/- has been received by A.T. Food Mart Pvt. Ltd. from Doordarshan and out of such amount, 1/3rd amount has been paid by Doordarshan to the account of such Company at its S.B.I. branch, Juhu, Mumbai. The petitioner has transferred Rs.73,67,000/- out of such amount to her account, account of co-accused Preeti Bhatia and the account of her husband. From the statements of witnesses filed before this Court, it is clear that the present petitioner being authorized signatory of M/s. A.T. Food Mart Ltd. in conspiracy with the principal accused person Pradeep Kumar Sethy transferred the account from such A.T. Group of Companies to produce serial “Command Force” and proceeds of such serials have been siphoned off through A.T. Food Mart Pvt. Ltd. to her account, account of her sister and her husband’s account. Thus, the money of gullible depositors under well planned has been trailed to the account of the present petitioner. It is also revealed from the materials that petitioner and co-accused Preeti Bhatia have formed a Company, namely, M/s. Candyfloss Media and Entertainment and amount of Rs.26,30,000/- has been transferred from A.T. Food Mart Pvt. Ltd. to such Company of petitioner and her sister. It is also submitted by CBI that Rs.82,30,000/- has been transferred to partnership Firm of present petitioner, namely, M/s. Aum Media Entertainment LLP and M/s. Incredible Production LLP. Not only this but also charge29 sheet has already been submitted against the present petitioner along with co-accused persons by CBI showing prima facie case of forgery, cheating and conspiracy read with Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. From the materials, it cannot be said that there is no prima facie case against her at present in respect of economic offences. 30. In view of the aforesaid case law discussed, in economic offences the Court cannot sit as a silent spectator but must rise to the occasion to consider the effect of such offence upon the society. Since the present petitioner is actively involved in economic offences as delineated above, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that her involvement is not well conceived, is untenable. 31. As it appears from the foregoing discussion, it cannot be said that there is no prima facie case or reasonable ground to believe that the petitioner had committed the offence. Besides that the offences prima facie found have been against her has got gravity because these are economic offences and having got deep routed consequence upon the society and people at large. In the event of conviction, there can be severity of punishment. It also appears that the petitioner has got passport and living at Mumbai for which absconding of petitioner in the event of release on bail cannot be ruled out. 32. In the event of conviction, there can be severity of punishment. It also appears that the petitioner has got passport and living at Mumbai for which absconding of petitioner in the event of release on bail cannot be ruled out. 32. From the discussion on the materials, it is revealed that the petitioner being the authorized signatory of A.T. Food Mart Pvt. Ltd. has trailed the money to her personal account and other account and also has falsely projected her as the Director of A.T. Group of Companies (M/s. Systematix Entertainment & Media Pvt. Ltd.) and opened the account at State Bank of India by forging the signatures of co-accused Pradeep Kumar Sethy & Jyotiprakash Joyprakash which is undoubtedly a serious offence on her part. Not only this but also she forced her employee Deepnarayan Singh to forge the signatures of co-accused Pradeep Kumar Sethy and Jyotiprakash Joyprakash to open the account in the Bank with her intention to grab the money to be made available from Doordarshan through banking transaction which is undoubtedly a serious misconduct on her part. So, in the event of grant of bail there is every likelihood of tampering with the witnesses and justice may be thwarted. So, following the case of Jagmohan Reddy (supra), the case of Amarmani Tripathi (supra) and Neeru Yadav (supra), she does not deserve to obtain bail. 33. Since there are diversifications of funds of A.T. Group of Companies and same fund is nothing but the poor peoples’ money being invested with trust and hope, no lenient view can be taken. It is further submitted by Mr. Das, learned Senior Advocate that the Hon’ble Apex Court has granted bail to the sister of the petitioner, namely, Preeti Bhatia and on parity the petitioner’s case for bail also should be considered. On the other hand, learned counsel for the CBI countering such argument submitted that the case of Preeti Bhatia is different from the case of the present petitioner. On the other hand, learned counsel for the CBI countering such argument submitted that the case of Preeti Bhatia is different from the case of the present petitioner. When the present petitioner has master mind to make conspiracy to open the account in the name of co-accused Pradeep Kumar Sethy and trailed the money being authorized signatory from the account of A.T. Food Mart Pvt. Ltd. to her personal account and to the account of her husband, her case cannot be at parity with the case of Preeti Bhatia as latter has gained the account being channelized from the A.T. Group through co-accused Pradeep Sethy. Moreover, the investigation has started on the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court has considered the bail of Preeti Bhatia on separate ground, release of Preeti Bhatia on bail cannot be at parity to the case of the present petitioner. 34. The last straw of the argument of Mr. Das, learned Senior Advocate is that the trial court is not functioning for which bail should be granted to the petitioner. On the other hand, learned counsel for the CBI submitted that as soon as the Presiding Officer joins they are ready with the trial to commence. When the investigation is kept open by the CBI, the question of pendency of the trial on the ground of non-joining of Presiding Officer does not arise. Consequently, question of grant of bail due to pendency of case without heading for trial is also out of reach. However, when investigation is kept open, there is chance of tampering the prosecution witnesses as submitted by the learned counsel for CBI, no lenient view can be taken to release the petitioner on bail. Moreover, the plea of the petitioner on the ground of self illness, illness of her mother or personal difficulty of her husband or her daughter will not improve her case as they are not well evident from materials. CONCLUSION 35. In to this Court is of the opinion that for the larger interest of the public and society, the petitioner in such economic offences of serious consequences deserves no sympathy. Even if she is a woman claiming benefit of gender justice but she claims to be film producer and her conduct showing serious thwart to society, this Court is loath to consider her case for bail. Even if she is a woman claiming benefit of gender justice but she claims to be film producer and her conduct showing serious thwart to society, this Court is loath to consider her case for bail. In the result, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. being devoid of merit stands rejected.