Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 368 (ORI)

Prasan Kumar Patra v. State of Odisha

2021-08-23

S.K.SAHOO

body2021
JUDGMENT : S.K. SAHOO, J. The petitioner Prasan Kumar Patra has approached this Court for the third time seeking for bail under section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with E.O.W., Odisha, Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No.17 of 2018 corresponding to C.T. Case No.14 of 2018 pending on the file of Presiding Officer, Designated Court, O.P.I.D. Act, Cuttack for offences punishable under sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 406 read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and section 6 of the Odisha Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 2011 (hereafter ‘O.P.I.D. Act’). 2. On 30.07.2018 one Manoranjan Mishra of Kanan Vihar, Phase-II, P.S.- Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar lodged the first information report before the Superintendent of Police, E.O.W., Odisha, Bhubaneswar alleging therein that during November 2012 after going through the advertisement of M/s. Z-Infra Construction Pvt. Ltd. (hereafter ‘the company’) about availability of plots under Jatani Tahasil near IIT relatively at a lower price in the Pragyan Vihar Project, he contacted the petitioner who was the Managing Director of the company at his office located at IRC Village, Nayapalli to purchase a plot measuring an area of 2400 sq. ft. in the project. The petitioner along with his officials showed the project site to the informant and assured him to give absolute right and title of the land after conversion and making boundary wall around the plot with approachable road to the plot. They also told the informant that the total project area has been purchased by them. The cost of the plot was Rs.3,60,000/- and they charged Rs.35,000/- for conversion of the land and Rs.60,000/- for constructing boundary wall around the plot. The informant paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only) on 11.08.2012 as booking amount and obtained a receipt from the company. It is the further case of the informant that on 05.11.2012 he paid another sum of Rs.3,50,000/- (rupees three lakh fifty thousand only) and obtained a receipt whereafter the petitioner registered the land on 06.11.2012 in favour of the informant by way of a registered sale deed. The land corresponds to Mouza- Kansapada, P.S.-Jatani, Khata No.76, Plot No.154, Sub Plot Nos.441 and 442, Area-Ac.0.055 dec. out of Ac.0.730 decimals. Thereafter, the informant paid a sum of Rs.95,000/- (rupees ninety five thousand only) on different dates for conversion and boundary wall of the plot. The land corresponds to Mouza- Kansapada, P.S.-Jatani, Khata No.76, Plot No.154, Sub Plot Nos.441 and 442, Area-Ac.0.055 dec. out of Ac.0.730 decimals. Thereafter, the informant paid a sum of Rs.95,000/- (rupees ninety five thousand only) on different dates for conversion and boundary wall of the plot. It is the further case of the informant that though the registration of the plot was made in November 2012 but there was no approach road to the said plot and the petitioner and others of his company falsely told the informant that they have right and title over entire Pragyan Vihar Project. They had the knowledge that they were not having right, title over the area and in spite of that they had received the payment from the informant with an intention to deceive him and thus in spite of registration of the land in favour of the informant, the same served no purpose. It is stated that the petitioner and other officers of the company deceived the informant an amount of Rs.4,55,000/- on the basis of false and fabricated documents. It is stated that in spite of repeated approach by the informant to the petitioner and other officials of the company, they did not construct the boundary wall around the plot as promised even though they received the amount since last six years. It is further stated that the petitioner as the Managing Director and others have cheated about five hundred persons and misappropriated an amount of rupees twenty crores. In some cases, registration of a plot has been done but there is no approach road and in some cases, registration has not been made even though payment has been received and in some cases, a particular plot has been sold to number of persons creating problems in mutation of land. The accused persons after misappropriating the amount absconded by closing their office. 3. On the basis of such first information report, E.O.W., Odisha, Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No.17 of 2018 was registered under sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and section 6 of the O.P.I.D. Act against the petitioner and Soumendra Narayan Dalabehera, Chief General Manager and others. During course of investigation, it was found that the company was registered under the Companies Act by ROC, Odisha, Cuttack on 07.05.2009 having registered office at Plot No.209, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar. During course of investigation, it was found that the company was registered under the Companies Act by ROC, Odisha, Cuttack on 07.05.2009 having registered office at Plot No.209, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar. One Smt. Rasmita Patra was the Director and the petitioner who is her husband was the Managing Director of the Company. During November 2012, the company made wide publicity about the availability of plots near IIT under Jatani Tahasil in lower price. Being induced by the advertisement of the Company, the informant contacted the petitioner to purchase a plot in the project. The Directors of the Company along with their officials showed the project site to the informant and assured him to give absolute right and title over the land after conversion and making boundary wall around the plot with approachable road. The informant paid Rs.4,55,000/- to the Company and the petitioner registered land on 06.11.2012 in favour of the informant knowing very well that the company had not purchased the land which was required for construction of approach road to the plot. It was found that in some cases, registration of a plot has been made even though there was no approach road, in some cases registration was not made even though payment had been received and in some cases, excess lands were sold in a plot to many persons creating problems in mutation of land. The petitioner and other accused persons absconded by closing their office after misappropriating the amount. Investigation further revealed that in the similar fashion, the petitioner and others of the company cheated about six hundred persons and misappropriated an amount more than twelve crores. The documents/registers seized from the petitioner showed that the company had collected cash of Rs.12,27,31564/- from six hundred sixty two investors. The documents such as brochures, money receipts, sale deeds, agreement etc. were seized from the witnesses. The office of petitioner located at Nayapalli was searched and many incriminating documents, investors entry registers were seized. Investigation further revealed that the petitioner was sixty percent share holder in the company whereas his wife Smt. Rashmita Patra was forty percent share holder in the company. were seized from the witnesses. The office of petitioner located at Nayapalli was searched and many incriminating documents, investors entry registers were seized. Investigation further revealed that the petitioner was sixty percent share holder in the company whereas his wife Smt. Rashmita Patra was forty percent share holder in the company. It was also found during investigation that the company represented through the petitioner and Director Smt. Rasmita Patra with an intention to defraud the investors, collected more than rupees twelve crores from them in a pre-planned manner under false assurance to provide plotted land in Bhubaneswar area at a reasonable rate with boundary and approaching road under different schemes but subsequently cheated them by not providing the same as promised. It was also found during investigation that petitioner as Managing Director of the company and others have collected huge amount from the prospective buyers and executed sale deeds of plots over which the company had no right, title, interest or possession. In some cases, they had not registered any plot in favour of the investors. In this process, the Directors of the company have defaulted to return the deposits and also failed to render service for which the deposits were made and as such the petitioner and other Directors of the Company being responsible for the management of the affairs of the financial establishment were also liable for prosecution under section 6 of O.P.I.D. Act, 2011. During course investigation, on scrutiny of bank account statements in favour of the company and its Directors, it was found that cash of Rs.8,42,10,203/- had been entered in the accounts of the petitioner and cash of Rs.6,66,748/- have been entered in the account of Rasmita Patra during this period. Cash of Rs.3,38,000/- had also been transferred from the company’s account to the account of Rasmita Patra. During investigation, it further revealed that the money receipts, agreements etc. issued by the company in favour of the investors were fake and fabricated and the same were prepared in order to cheat the investors. The petitioner along with others had collected more than rupees twelve crores from the informant as well as other investors. During investigation, it further revealed that the money receipts, agreements etc. issued by the company in favour of the investors were fake and fabricated and the same were prepared in order to cheat the investors. The petitioner along with others had collected more than rupees twelve crores from the informant as well as other investors. The investigating officer came to hold that the company represented through the petitioner and others, with an intention to defraud the investors, collected crores of rupees from them in a pre-planned manner under the false assurance to provide plots with boundary wall and approachable road at Kansapada area at reasonable rate under different schemes but subsequently cheated them by not providing the same as promised. The petitioner and others connived with each other, created fake documents and issued fake agreement, money receipts to the investors by not giving them plot with boundary wall and approach road at Kansapada area. The investigating officer found prima facie evidence against the petitioner and others under sections 467, 468, 471, 406 read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and section 6 of the O.P.I.D. Act and accordingly, he submitted charge sheet on 29.11.2018 against them keeping further investigation open under section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. to trace out movable and immovable properties of the company so also its Directors and associates, for scrutinisation of the bank accounts, to ascertain the money trailing and to collect the certified copies of sale deeds pertaining to the landed property standing in the name of the company and its Directors and to examine many more witnesses. 4. The petitioner approached this Court first time in BLAPL No.439 of 2019 and vide order dated 06.03.2019, the prayer for bail was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was the Managing Director of the company and as prima facie it appeared that the petitioner along with his wife and others had collected huge amount of deposits in a pre-planned and organized manner in the name of providing developed plots to the depositors and then cheated them and misappropriated more than twelve crores of rupees and that the money receipts, agreements etc. issued by the company were found to be fake and fabricated during investigation. issued by the company were found to be fake and fabricated during investigation. This Court also took into account the manner in which the offence has been committed, the nature and gravity of the accusation, the nature of supporting evidence, the severity of punishment in case of conviction, the manner in which the innocent poor persons were cheated of their hard earned money, availability of documentary evidence relating to money trailing from the company’s accounts to the accounts of the petitioner and his wife, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the evidence and the fact that further investigation on some important aspects was under progress and accordingly, in the larger interest of public and State, rejected the bail application. The petitioner again approached this Court in BLAPL No. 5727 of 2019 for interim bail on the ground of his ailment, but vide order dated 28.08.2019, after going through the medical documents as well as the reports produced, this Court held that there was no allegation of any negligence relating to the treatment of the petitioner. While rejecting the prayer for bail, this Court directed the Senior Superintendent of Circle Jail, Cuttack at Choudwar to take steps for treatment of the petitioner as was taken earlier in case any health complication is reported. Challenging the aforesaid order dated 28.08.2019 passed by this Court in BLAPL No. 5727 of 2019, the petitioner moved the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.9116 of 2019 but the same was dismissed as the petitioner withdrew the same with liberty to move this Court for regular bail. Then the petitioner approached this Court for the third time in this application. During pendency of this application, the petitioner moved an interim application bearing I.A. No. 840 of 2020 for interim bail on the ground of attending the obsequies ceremony of his deceased mother and this Court vide order dated 14.09.2020, granted him interim bail for the period from 15th September 2020 to 28th September 2020 with certain terms and conditions. When the matter came up on 11.12.2020, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that due to order of the Division Bench of this Court extending the interim orders at different times on account of the situation arising out of Covid-19 pandemic, the petitioner did not surrender on the date fixed. When the matter came up on 11.12.2020, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that due to order of the Division Bench of this Court extending the interim orders at different times on account of the situation arising out of Covid-19 pandemic, the petitioner did not surrender on the date fixed. Since the petitioner did not surrender on the date fixed, this Court as per order dated 11.12.2020 called for a report from the trial Court as to what steps have been taken to arrest the petitioner. Challenging the said order dated 11.12.2020, the petitioner again moved the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.1349 of 2021 and vide order dated 10.03.2021, while setting aside the portion of the order calling for the report from the learned trial Court regarding the steps taken for the arrest of the petitioner, disposed of the Special Leave Petition requesting this Court for early disposal of the bail application. However, the petitioner surrendered before the learned trial Court on 18.02.2021. 5. Mr. Ashwini Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in his own inimitable elegant style contended that the petitioner was taken into judicial custody since 7th August 2018 and he is a victim of wrong implication of law as none of the alleged offences under the Indian Penal Code are made out against him. He further urged that the petitioner and his company do not come under the category of ‘financial establishment’ as per OPID Act but comes under real estate promoter category as per the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereafter ‘RERA Act’). According to him, the informant and the witnesses do not come under the category of investors/depositors but they come under the category of allottees/purchasers as per RERA Act and the amount they have paid was towards the cost of land in the project of the petitioner and against such consideration amount, so far as the informant is concerned, sale deed was executed on 06.11.2012 and subsequently record of right was also issued in his favour. The payment made by the informant and others do not come under the category of ‘deposit’ as per the OPID Act. The payment made by the informant and others do not come under the category of ‘deposit’ as per the OPID Act. He laid down emphasis on the change of definition of ‘deposit’ as per the Odisha Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Amendment Act, 2016 (hereafter ‘OPID Amendment Act, 2016’) which was notified in the Odisha Gazette on 11.11.2016 that any credit given by a seller to a buyer on the sale of any property (whether movable or immovable) shall not be deemed to be deposit for the purpose of the clause ‘chit’ under the Chit Funds Act, 1982. He further argued that when there is a special and specific law as to how to protect the interest of the allottee/purchaser and also the interest of the promoters and real estate brokers, a case under the Indian Penal Code or OPID Act is not maintainable and the Designated Court under the OPID Act lacks jurisdiction to try the case. Relying upon the different provisions of the OPID Act, he contended that the initiation of the proceeding against the petitioner as per the provisions of the OPID Act and the Indian Penal Code is bad in the eyes of law as the petitioner and his company comes under the category of promoter and deals with real estate project as per RERA Act. While concluding his argument, Mr. Das laid emphasis on the delayed trial of the petitioner as in spite of the fact that the charge was framed since 06.01.2020, only three witnesses out of sixty eight witnesses have been examined so far in the trial Court and he argued that since there is no chance of absconding of the petitioner or tampering with the evidence and the petitioner has not misutilised his liberty while on interim bail, his bail application deserves favourable consideration. Mr. Bibekananda Bhuyan, learned Special Counsel appearing for the State of Odisha in OPID Act matters on the other hand vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and contended that almost identical contentions were raised earlier in the first bail application of the petitioner in BLAPL No.439 of 2019 which were dealt with by this Court and findings have been given and the petitioner has not challenged such order in the Hon’ble Supreme Court and thus such findings have attended its finality. Mr. Mr. Bhuyan further contended that the change of definition of ‘deposit’ is no way relevant in this case particularly when most of the deposits were accepted much prior to the Gazette notification dated 11.11.2016 and thus it would be guided by the earlier definition of ‘deposit’ under the OPID Act. He further argued that the delayed trial was not on account of any fault of the prosecution but the same was due to the situation arising out of COVID-19 pandemic when the examination of the witnesses could not be taken up in the trial Courts in the State of Odisha as per the orders of this Court issued from time to time and moreover the petitioner was released on interim bail on 15th September 2020 and he surrendered only on 18.02.2021. It was argued that there is no change in the circumstances after rejection of the first bail application on 06.03.2019 and the petitioner is a white-collar offender and crores of rupees have been cheated from the poor investors and the petitioner’s key role in the commission of economic offence is prima facie apparent and there was deep rooted criminal conspiracy to cheat public with an eye on personal profit, large number of innocent depositors have been duped of their hard-earned money and at this stage when important witnesses are yet to be examined in the trial Court, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every likelihood of tampering with the evidence and therefore, the bail application should be rejected. 6. Economic offences are always considered as grave offences as it affects the economy of the country as a whole and such offences having deep rooted conspiracy and involving huge loss of public fund are to be viewed seriously. Economic offences are committed with cool calculation and deliberate design solely with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. In such type of offences, while granting bail, the Court has to keep in mind, inter alia, the larger interest of public and State. The nature and seriousness of an economic offence and its impact on the society are always important considerations in such a case and those aspects must squarely be dealt with by the Court while passing an order on bail applications. Detailed examination of evidence and elaborate discussion on merits of the case should not be undertaken while adjudicating a bail application. Detailed examination of evidence and elaborate discussion on merits of the case should not be undertaken while adjudicating a bail application. The nature of accusation, the severity of punishment in case of conviction, the nature of supporting evidence, the criminal antecedents of the accused if any, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses, apprehension of threat to the witnesses, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial and above all the larger interests of the public and State are required to be taken note of by the Court while granting bail. There is no dispute that the first bail application of the petitioner in BLAPL No.439 of 2019 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 06.03.2019 and the petitioner has not approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court against such order. The second bail application of the petitioner in BLAPL No. 5727 of 2019 for interim bail was rejected by this Court vide order dated 28.08.2019 and though the petitioner challenged such order in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave Petition but the same was dismissed as withdrawn and the petitioner was given liberty to move this Court for regular bail. It is the settled position of law that successive bail applications are permissible under the changed circumstances. The change of circumstances must be substantial one which has a direct impact on the earlier decision and not merely cosmetic changes which are of little or no consequence. Without the change in the circumstances, the subsequent bail application would be deemed to be seeking review of the earlier rejection order which is not permissible under criminal law. While entertaining such subsequent bail applications, the Court has a duty to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail application was rejected and what are the fresh grounds which persuade it warranting the evaluation and consideration of the bail application afresh and to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier application. There must be change in the fact situation or in law which requires the earlier view being interfered with or where the earlier finding has become obsolete. This is the limited area in which the application for bail of an accused that has been rejected earlier can be reconsidered. There must be change in the fact situation or in law which requires the earlier view being interfered with or where the earlier finding has become obsolete. This is the limited area in which the application for bail of an accused that has been rejected earlier can be reconsidered. If a bail application is rejected considering some grounds urged by the counsel for the accused and on the self same materials and without any change in the circumstances, the successive bail application is moved taking some other grounds and the Court is asked to reconsider the prayer of bail, it would be an endless exercise for the Court and entertaining such application would be a sheer wastage of valuable time of the Court. 7. It is seen that almost identical contentions were raised in BLAPL No.439 of 2019 except that the informant and the witnesses do not come under the category of investors/depositors but they come under the category of allottees/purchasers as per RERA Act. This Court held as follows: “........Prior to the amendment made in the year 2016, the term ‘deposit’ as per section 2(b) of the O.P.I.D. Act meant the deposit of money either in one lump sum or by installments made with the Financial Establishment for a fixed period for interest or for return in any kind or for any service. After the amendment which came into force on 11.11.2016 as per Odisha Act 15 of 2016, the term ‘deposit’ as per section 2(b) of the O.P.I.D. Act included any receipt of money or acceptance of any valuable commodity, to be returned after a specified period or otherwise, either in cash or in kind or in the form of a specified service, by any Financial Establishment, with or without any benefit in the form of interest, bonus, profit or in any other form. The term ‘deposit’ excluded certain amounts from its purview which have been enumerated under clauses (i) to (vii) of section 2(b) of the O.P.I.D. Act. The term ‘Financial Establishment’ as appears in section 2(d) of the O.P.I.D. Act means an individual or an association of individual, a firm or a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 carrying on the business of receiving deposits under any scheme or arrangement or in any other manner. The term ‘Financial Establishment’ as appears in section 2(d) of the O.P.I.D. Act means an individual or an association of individual, a firm or a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 carrying on the business of receiving deposits under any scheme or arrangement or in any other manner. This term excludes a corporation or a co-operative society owned or controlled by any State Government or the Central Government or a Banking Company as defined under clause (c) of section 5 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Since the company in this case was registered under the Companies Act by ROC, Odisha, Cuttack on 07.05.2009 and it was carrying on the business of receiving money from the public under Pragyan Vihar Project for providing developed plots to the investors and the terms and conditions of such business have been indicated in the brochure issued by the company, in my humble view, the company comes under ‘Financial Establishment’ as per section 2(d) of the O.P.I.D. Act. The money which was deposited with the company either in one lump sum or by installments was for getting developed plots as per the assurance given in the brochure. Therefore, such money paid to the company would come within the term ‘deposit’ as per section 2(b) of the O.P.I.D. Act. Section 6 of the O.P.I.D. Act, inter alia, states that if any Financial Establishment fails to render service for which the deposit has been made then every person responsible for the management of the affairs of the Financial Establishment shall be punished with imprisonment and fine as provided under the said section and such Financial Establishment is also liable to pay fine. The fine amount of rupees ‘one lakh’ and ‘two lakh’ were enhanced to ‘ten lakh’ and ‘one crore’ respectively by virtue of the amendment which was made in the year 2016. Even though the deposits were received prior to the enactment of the O.P.I.D. Act, as the company failed to render service in providing developed plots to the depositors under Pragyan Vihar Project, after the O.P.I.D. Act came into force, non-rendering of service makes it a ‘continuing offence’. According to the Blacks' Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition (Special Deluxe), 'continuing' means "enduring; not terminated by a single act or fact; subsisting for a definite period or intended to cover or apply to successive similar obligations or occurrences”. According to the Blacks' Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition (Special Deluxe), 'continuing' means "enduring; not terminated by a single act or fact; subsisting for a definite period or intended to cover or apply to successive similar obligations or occurrences”. A continuing offence is the type of crime which is committed over a span of time. It is susceptible of continuance and is distinguishable from the one which is committed once and for all. It is one of those offences which arise out of a failure to comply certain requirements and it continues until the requirements are obeyed or complied with. On every occasion the disobedience or non-compliance occurs and reoccurs, the offence is committed. It constitutes a fresh offence every time. In case of Udai Shankar Awasthi -Vrs.- State of U.P. reported in (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases 435, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in the case of a continuing offence, the ingredients of the offence continue, i.e. endure even after the period of consummation whereas in an instantaneous offence, the offence takes place once and for all i.e. when the same actually takes place. In such cases, there is no continuing offence, even though the damage resulting from the injury may itself continue. So long as the Financial Establishment fails to render service for which the deposit has been accepted, it would be a continuing offence irrespective of the fact whether deposit was accepted prior to enactment of O.P.I.D. Act, if failure to render service continues after the Act came into force. In my humble view, the prima facie ingredients of offence under section 6 of the O.P.I.D. Act are attracted in the case. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the registration of the F.I.R. and submission of charge sheet under section 6 of the O.P.I.D. Act was not proper and justified cannot be accepted.” 8. The change in the definition of term ‘deposit’ as per the OPID Amendment Act, 2016 which was notified in the Odisha Gazette on 11.11.2016 on which the learned counsel for the petitioner has laid emphasis is Explanation II to clause (vii) of section 2(b). Clause (vii) of section 2(b) states that any amount received by way of subscriptions in receipt of a Chit shall not be included within the term ‘deposit’. Clause (vii) of section 2(b) states that any amount received by way of subscriptions in receipt of a Chit shall not be included within the term ‘deposit’. Explanation II to clause (vii) states that any credit given by a seller to a buyer on the sale of any property (whether movable or immovable) shall not be deemed to be deposit for the purposes of the clause (vii). The meaning of ‘Chit’ is adopted from its definition in clause (b) of section 2 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 in Explanation I. In my humble view, this change in definition of the term ‘deposit’ is no way relevant in this case as it is rightly contended by Mr. Bhuyan that most of the deposits were accepted much prior to the Gazette notification dated 11.11.2016 of OPID Amendment Act, 2016 and thus it would be guided by the earlier definition of ‘deposit’ under the OPID Act. The definition of allottees/purchasers as per RERA Act would have no effect on the commission of offences in this case because of its commencement and continuity. 9. It is true that the right of speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and denial of this right corrode the public confidence in the justice delivery system and it is also not in dispute that the charge in this case was framed on 06.01.2020 and only three witnesses out of sixty eight witnesses have been examined so far in the trial Court, but it cannot be lost sight of the fact that the delayed trial was not on account of any fault of the prosecution but the same was due to the situation arising out of COVID-19 pandemic when the examination of witnesses could not be taken up in the trial Courts in the State of Odisha as per the orders of this Court issued from time to time. The petitioner was released on interim bail on 15th September 2020 and he surrendered only on 18.02.2021. It has been brought to my notice that the physical hearing has already commenced in the trial Courts and examination of witnesses are also being taken up and therefore, it is expected that the learned trial Court shall expedite the trial keeping in view the provision under section 309 of Cr.P.C. 10. It has been brought to my notice that the physical hearing has already commenced in the trial Courts and examination of witnesses are also being taken up and therefore, it is expected that the learned trial Court shall expedite the trial keeping in view the provision under section 309 of Cr.P.C. 10. In view of the foregoing discussions, since the petitioner was the Managing Director of the company and the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record prima facie indicates that he along with his wife and others have collected huge amount of deposits in a pre-planned and organized manner in the name of providing developed plots to the depositors and then cheated them and misappropriated more than twelve crores of rupees and the money receipts, agreements etc. issued by the company were found to be fake and fabricated, the manner in which the offence has been committed and the innocent poor persons were cheated of their hard earned money, availability of documentary evidence relating to money trailing from the company’s accounts to the accounts of the petitioner and his wife, absence of change in the circumstances after the rejection of the earlier bail applications and reasonable apprehension of tampering with the evidence, in the larger interest of public and State, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the bail application sans merit and hence stands rejected.