JUDGMENT J.P.DAS, J. - This is an application under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. The petitioner is an accused in S.P.E. Case No.08 of 2014 corresponding to R.C. Case No.13/S/2014 on the file of learned Special C.J.M., C.B.I., Bhubaneswar charge-sheeted under Sections 120-B/420/409 of the I.P.C. and Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chit Money Circulation Scheme Banning Act, 1978. 3. Originally, two cases were registered, one as Baliapal P.S.Case No.84 of 2013 and the other as Kalimela P.S.Case No.65 of 2013 for the alleged offences as aforesaid with the allegation that the officials and the agents of one M/s. Remac Reality India Ltd. with its Head Office at Kolkata collected huge amount of public deposits illegally by floating different alluring schemes promising high returns within a short span of time, but ultimately the depositors were cheated not being given with assured returns. Subsequently, the investigation of the cases was taken over by the C.B.I. as per direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court. In course of investigation, the present petitioner along with other co-accused persons were arrested and it was alleged that the present petitioner was one of the Additional Directors of the Company and was actively engaged in the illegal collection of deposits and criminal misappropriation of those funds for personal benefit. A charge-sheet was submitted on 18.07.2016 keeping the further investigation open. The application for bail of the present petitioner stood rejected by the learned trial court as well as by the learned Sessions Judge, Khurdha at Bhubaneswar with the observation that the petitioner is involved in serious economic offences and further investigation has been kept open. 4. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was merely an employee in the Company having no direct nexus with the alleged collection of deposits and use of such amounts. It was further submitted placing some documents that the petitioner was originally appointed as a Sales Manager and subsequently got some promotion and was ultimately designated as an Additional Director only for the name sake. It was further submitted that the Principal Director namely, one Partha Pritam Tiwari and his wife Leena Tiwari held 34,985 and 14,985 numbers of equity shares respectively whereas the petitioner held only five equity shares, which would show that the petitioner was a Director only for the name sake. It was further submitted that the Principal Director namely, one Partha Pritam Tiwari and his wife Leena Tiwari held 34,985 and 14,985 numbers of equity shares respectively whereas the petitioner held only five equity shares, which would show that the petitioner was a Director only for the name sake. It was also submitted placing some further documents that the petitioner has informed the Company intending his resignation since 2013 and at no relation with the day-to-day affairs of the Company. Lastly, it was submitted that the petitioner being arrested is in custody since 04.06.2016 and the trial of the case has not yet been commenced, though charges have been framed only on 12.07.2018. 5. The bail application was strongly objected to on behalf of the C.B.I. with the submissions that in course of the investigation, it was found out that the Company had collected deposits from general public to a tune of Rs.163,26,51,550.00 and had refunded only Rs. 78,06,94,325.00, thus, leaving a huge liability of Rs.105,41,50,105.00. It was further submitted that the petitioner was actively participating in the affairs of the Company and was the Additional Director of the Company for the period from 2010 to 2013. It was further submitted that the investigation of the case has been kept open and there is every possibility of tampering with the prosecution evidence, if the petitioner would be released on bail. It was also submitted that it was found out in course of investigation that an amount of Rs.11,14,711/- was transferred to the personal account of the petitioner from the accounts of the Company. Of course, in this regard it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the said amount was received by the petitioner towards his remuneration and not for any illegal purpose. 6. The petitioner is in custody since 04.06.2016 and the charge-sheet having been submitted, the charges have already been framed. As seen from the documents placed on behalf of the petitioner, he held only five equity shares of the Company and the other documents as placed also show that the petitioner was originally a Sales Manager of the Company. It has been the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as by this Court in different cases that pre trial detention of an accused, cannot be taken as a substitute for imprisonment after conviction, of course depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. It has been the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as by this Court in different cases that pre trial detention of an accused, cannot be taken as a substitute for imprisonment after conviction, of course depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. In this case, the petitioner has remained in custody for more than two years and as seen from the documents, the Principal Operators of the company were Partha Pritam Tiwari and his wife Leena Tiwari. Of course on the materials placed on behalf of the C.B.I., there are prima-facie allegations against the petitioner to have been involved in the affairs of the Company. 6. However, taking into consideration the period of detention of the petitioner in custody and the specific amount alleged to have been found out to have been transferred to the personal account of the petitioner, I am of the considered view that the petitioner can be released on bail on stringent conditions. Accordingly, it is directed that let the petitioner be released on bail by furnishing a bond of Rs.2,00,000/- (two lakhs) with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the following conditions i. he shall furnish cash security of Rs.5,00,000/- (five lakhs) to the satisfaction of the learned trial court, ii. he shall surrender his pass-port before the learned trial court, if not surrendered earlier and if he does not have pass port, he shall file an affidavit to that effect before the trial court, iii. he shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever. iv, he shall appear before the Investigating Agency as and when required for the purpose of further investigation and v. he shall not default in personal attendance of court during trial on each date, of course subject to the discretion of the learned trial court under Section 317 of the Cr.P.C. Appeal allowed.