SHRIKANT MOHTA Vs. REPUBLIC OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Shrikant Mohta earlier knocked the doors of this Court for bail in an application under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in BLAPL No.1983 of 2019 in connection with R.C. Case No. 39/S/2014-Kol dated 05.06.2014 corresponding to SPE Case No. 34 of 2014 pending on the file of Special C.J.M. (C.B.I.), Bhubaneswar which was rejected as per order dated 13.05.2019. After submission of charge sheet against the petitioner on 22.05.2019 for commission of offences punishable under sections 420, 409 read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 (hereafter '1978 Act'), he has again approached this Court for bail after his prayer for bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar in Bail Application No.854 of 2019 was rejected vide order dated 18.06.2019.

(2.) The present case was instituted by clubbing three First Information Reports of three different cases i.e. Buguda P.S. Case No.75 of 2013, Jeypore Town P.S. Case No.71 of 2013 and Nuapada P.S. Case No.82 of 2013 in pursuance of the order dated 09.05.2014 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in W.P. (Civil) No.401 of 2013 filed by Shri Subrata Chattoraj and W.P. (Civil) No.413 of 2013 filed by Shri Alok Jena. According to the prosecution case, Rose Valley Group of Companies (hereafter for short 'Rose Valley') collected huge amount of money from public enticing them with false promise of paying higher rates of interest although Rose Valley was not having any authorization from the Reserve Bank of India (hereafter for short 'RBI') or the Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereafter for short 'SEBI') for carrying out such activities and therefore, the company cheated the public.

(3.) The earlier bail application of the petitioner was rejected by this Court considering the nature and gravity of the accusation, strong prima facie case available against the petitioner to show his involvement in the economic offence committed by Rose Valley, likelihood of tampering with the evidence when the investigation was at a crucial stage and several bank accounts of the petitioner and his company were under scrutiny to trace out any further money transactions with Rose Valley and above all in the larger interest of society.