JUDGMENT J.P.DAS, J. - This in an application under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code filed by the petitioner who is in custody as an accused in S.P.E. Case No. 34 of 2014 corresponding to R.C. Case No. 39(S) of 2014 (Kolkata) on the file of learned Special C.J.M., C.B.I., Bhubaneswar. 2. Originally, three separate cases were registered at Buguda Police Station, Nuapada Police Station and Jeypore Town Police Station in Odisha for the offences punishable under Sections 420/120-B/408/409, IPC and Sections 4,5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 on submission of separate F.I.R.s. with the allegations that M/s. Rose valley Group of Companies collected money from different persons assuring high returns, but was not in a position to pay back the investors. While the cases were pending investigation, as per direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the investigation of all the cases registered in the State of Odisha against forty four Companies including the M/s. Rose Valley Group of Companies was taken over by the Central Bureau of Investigation. Accordingly, a fresh F.I.R. was registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation and investigation was taken up. 3. It revealed in course of investigation that Rose Valley Group of Companies collected money from public enticing with false promise of paying higher rate of interest even though the Company was not having any authorization from the Reserve Bank of India or S.E.B.I. for doing so. As per direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court, investigation was also conducted to look into the aspects of larger criminal conspiracy and money trail and while doing so, to examine the roles of other persons who by using their position and influence supported the Company in promoting its affairs of carrying out the illegal money collection business without statutory approval. In course of such investigation, the present petitioner who was a sitting Member of Parliament (M.P.), was found to have been involved in the affairs of the Company and in conspiracy with one Goutam Kundu, Managing Director of M/s. Rose Valley Group of Companies, had exercised his influential position in promoting the illegal business of the Company. Hence, he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 03.01.2017. 4. Hence, he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 03.01.2017. 4. The case was registered by the C.B.I. for the offences punishable under Sections 420/408/409/120-B/34, IPC read with Sections 4,5 and 6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme )Banning Act, 1978. Supplementary charge-sheet has been filed against the present petitioner and others on 26.04.2017 for the offences under Section 120-B, IPC read with Sections 420/409, I.P.C., Sections 4 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 5. As per the allegations made in the charge sheet the petitioner received undue pecuniary advantage regularly form the M/s. Rose Valley Group of Companies in lieu of his favours extended to the Company. It has been specifically alleged that on 18.05.2010 he received a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-(Rupees five lacs) and again on 30.09.2011 he received another Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lacs) from the Company. It has been further alleged that in the month of October, 2012 the petitioner visited Europe with his wife and an amount of Rs. 17,70,800/- (Rupees seventeen lakh seventy thousand eight hundred) was paid to one Kolkata based Tour Operator by the M/s. Rose Valley Group of Companies. It has been further alleged that apart from the specific payments, the investigation revealed that the Managing Director Sri Gautam Kundu used to carry many packets to the house of the petitioner during his visits to the petitioner. It has been further alleged that the said Managing Director used to have closed door meetings with the present petitioner at different places and hotels and further the present petitioner took special interest to get the son of said Goutam Kundu admitted in St. Xavier School, Kolkata by exercising his official influence. 6. It has been specifically alleged that the petitioner attended two business development meetings of the M/s. Rose Valley Group of Companies in the year 2011 and 2012 and declared his support in favour of the Company thereby giving confidence to the potential investors to believe that the Company was carrying on genuine business, even though he had full and conscious knowledge about the illegal money business. Thus, it has been alleged that the petitioner mis-utilizing his official stature and position promoted illegal money collection business of the M/s. Rose Valley Group of Companies. 7. Thus, it has been alleged that the petitioner mis-utilizing his official stature and position promoted illegal money collection business of the M/s. Rose Valley Group of Companies. 7. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case with concocted allegations and is in custody for more than four months. It was further submitted that the F.I.R. was registered as back as in the year 2013 and the investigation was taken over by the C.B.I. in the year 2014. A preliminary charge-sheet was submitted by the C.B.I. in the month of January, 2016, but the petitioner was nowhere named therein, subsequently, the petitioner was noticed by the C.B.I. and when he attended the office on 3rd January, 2017, he was arrested even without disclosing any grounds of such arrest. It was further submitted that even conceding the allegations as leveled in the charge sheet regarding the acceptance of the monetary benefits for the sake of the argument, those do not make out any offence against the petitioner as alleged as because nowhere it has been found out that the petitioner has any relation with the business affairs of the Company or in collection of the deposits from the public or for that matter to have misutilized the funds of the Company for his own interest. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the family relationship between the petitioner and the Managing Director Sri Gautam Kundu is not disputed. It is also not disputed that the petitioner attended two meetings of the Company which were two functions of Memorial competition for giving away prizes to the agents of the Company who had achieved the special targets. Those meetings admittedly were held in the Netaji Indoor Stadium and the petitioner being a local political leader attended the said meeting being invited by his friend Goutam Kundu. It was submitted further that attending a function of a Company or having a family relationship with a person who was subsequently accused of illegal transactions can never make the petitioner a conspirator or a promoter of the Company for its illegal business as has been alleged by the Investigating Agency. It was submitted further that attending a function of a Company or having a family relationship with a person who was subsequently accused of illegal transactions can never make the petitioner a conspirator or a promoter of the Company for its illegal business as has been alleged by the Investigating Agency. It was also contended that in course of investigation during all these years absolutely no material has been found out by the C.B.I. to show that the petitioner ever participated in the policy making decisions or monetary transactions of the Company so as to fasten him with the alleged offences. It was also submitted that recommendation given by the petitioner for admission of son of Goutam Kundu in a school can never be termed as an illegal act on the admitted position that there was family relationship between the petitioner and the said Goutam Kundu. 8. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation that the case being related to serious economic offences, the investigation is not only to find out the illegal collection of money from the general public but also the money trail, political or official patronage and also the angle of larger conspiracy in respect of the affairs of the Company, it was further submitted that the Rose Valley Group of Companies was repeatedly warned by the S.E.B.I against its unauthorized activities and it was also banned by S.E.B.I. in the year 2003. Again in the year 2011 it was banned and those matters were widely published in news paper and media exposing the unauthorised activities of the Company. Thus, the petitioner being a Member of Parliament besides being a member of the Parliamentary Standing Committee of finance and defence and having held the post of Union Minister for some time must have known the illegal affairs of the Company, but, still kept relationship with the Managing Director and promoted the Company’s affairs by showering praises for its activities and pronouncing his open support for its affairs. It was further contended that the investigation of the case is still in progress and the release of the petitioner on bail given the stature and position he holds, would seriously affect the investigation and collection of evidence. It was further contended that the investigation of the case is still in progress and the release of the petitioner on bail given the stature and position he holds, would seriously affect the investigation and collection of evidence. The learned counsel for the C.B.I. also placed before the Court the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. showing the relationship and the meetings between the petitioner and the Managing Director Sri Gautam Kundu as well as acceptance of money by the petitioner from the Company besides some photographs showing the cordial relationship and closeness between the family of the petitioner and the family of Sri Goutam Kundu. 9. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that all the materials as available have already been collected by the C.B.I. against the petitioner, most of which, remain admitted so far as the relationship between the petitioner and the main accused is concerned and as per the specific allegation in the charge-sheet, the petitioner has taken the monetary benefit of around Rs. 27 lacs whereas the total allegation of monetary transaction against M/s. Rose Valley Group of Companies is rupees eighteen thousand crores. It was also submitted that although some statements have been prepared mentioning that the main accused Goutam Kundu used to carry money packets while visiting petitioner, still no specific material or amount has come up during the investigation made by the C.B.I. during last three years. 10. Lastly, it was submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 03.01.2017 and is suffering from several serious ailments lying confined to the hospital bed. In this respect, it was submitted on behalf of the C.B.I. that on the complain of illness made by the petitioner, he has been provided with the best medical facilities available in the State. 11. Considering the submissions made on behalf of both sides and the materials placed before the Court, it remains undisputed that the petitioner has relationship with the managing Director of Rose Valley Group of Companies Sri Gautam Kundu and the petitioner has not only participated in the two Annual Meetings of the Company but also has shared private family functions. It is also seen from the papers that once the petitioner accepted rupees five lacs under due receipt and the total pecuniary benefit allegedly received by the petitioner as per charge sheet is around rupees twenty seven lacs. It is also seen from the papers that once the petitioner accepted rupees five lacs under due receipt and the total pecuniary benefit allegedly received by the petitioner as per charge sheet is around rupees twenty seven lacs. It is of course not the case of the C.B.I. as yet that the petitioner was in any officiating position of the Company or had taken part in the collection of the deposits from the general public. The only allegation that stands out against the petitioner is that being a sitting Member of Parliament and an influential person, he identified himself with the affairs of the Company putting words of admiration for its activities, which allegedly allured the potential investors and the general public as well, to invest money with the Company. 12. It was strenuously contended by the learned counsel for the C.B.I. that the case being of serious economic offences, the prayer of the petitioner to be released on bail should be considered on different footing as per repeated observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in different similar cases since the alleged activities of the Company not only affected any single individual or group of individual but also hit at the root of economic health of the country. A number of citations have been filed in support of such contentions. The position of law is not disputed. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. C.B.I. (2012) 1 OCR (SC) 128 wherein it has been observed that in cases involving economic offences of formidable magnitude while dealing with the issue of granting bail, the deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. It was also observed that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any Court to refuse bail as mark of disapproval of former conduct whether an accused has been convicted for it or not. 13. It was also observed that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any Court to refuse bail as mark of disapproval of former conduct whether an accused has been convicted for it or not. 13. Of course it has been observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the jurisdiction of the Court to grant bail to the accused pending trial or in appeal against conviction is discretionary in nature and it is to be exercised with care and caution by balancing the valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general. The seriousness of the charge is no doubt one of the relevant considerations while examining the application of bail but it is not the only test or the factor and grant or denial of bail is regulated to a large extent by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. No doubt in dealing with such cases the consequences of granting bail to an accused involved in serious economic offences is always considered with its ultimate impact on the society with thousands of gullible investors waiting to get back their hard earned money invested with the fraudulent Companies. But, at the same time, the accused who has been actively involved in the affairs of the Company, promoting its business by circulating alluring schemes, receiving deposits and mis-utlizing the funds for his own benefit, cannot be considered on same footing with an accused who has been found out to have some relation with the persons in the management of the said Company and to have received some pecuniary benefits. 14. In the instant case, the contentions as advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner being a political leader and sitting M.P. of the local area, his attending the meeting on invitation of a big Company like the present one was quite natural without any criminal motive, especially on the admitted family relationship, seem to have a sustainable force. As yet no material has been found out regarding any participation of the petitioner in the monetary transactions made by the Company except the allegation of receiving some financial favours. The petitioner is in custody since 36.1.2017 and his pleaded illness and hospitalization are not disputed. 15. As yet no material has been found out regarding any participation of the petitioner in the monetary transactions made by the Company except the allegation of receiving some financial favours. The petitioner is in custody since 36.1.2017 and his pleaded illness and hospitalization are not disputed. 15. Considering the submissions along with the materials placed before the Court along with the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that let the petitioner be released on bail on the following terms and conditions: i. he shall furnish a cash security of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees twenty five lacs) besides a bond of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lacs) with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special C.J.M. (C.B.I.), Bhubaneswar; ii. he shall surrender his passport and shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court; iii. he shall co-operate in the investigation of the case as and when required by the C.B.I.; iv. he shall not involve himself in any act of the alleged type and v. shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever or induce/influence/dissuade/intimidate any witness. vi. Violation of any of the conditions shall entail consideration for cancellation of bail. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of. Ordered accordingly.