RAMENDU CHATTOPADHYAY Vs. REPUBLIC OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is in custody since 10/3/2016 in connection with S.P.E. No.5 of 2014 arising out of Baliapal P.S. Case No.85/2013 of the Court of learned Special C.J.M.(CBI), Bhubaneswar for the offence under Ss. 420/467/468/120-B/34 of I.P.C. read with Ss. 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. Originally, on the complaint submitted by the S.I. of Baliapal P.S. in the district of Balasore, Baliapal P.S. Case No.85/2013 was registered, but subsequently as per direction of the Supreme Court in W.P.(Civil) No.401/2013 passed in the case of Subrata Chattoraj vs. Union of India and others, the investigation was taken over by the C.B.I. in respect of 44 Chit Fund Companies registered in different Police Stations in the States of Odisha and West Bengal. The Petitioner is the Managing Director of one such company namely, M/s. Tower Infotech Company Ltd. having its registered office at Calcutta and branch offices at different places in the Country including one at Baliapal in the District of Balasore. It is alleged that the Company collected huge amount of money from the general public through its agents and officials under the colour of several attractive schemes promising high returns within short span of time. However, there was never any intention on its part to pay back the amount as promised and in fact, the Investors were not paid back. Basing on the investigation conducted by the C.B.I., the Petitioner was initially arrested on 10/3/2016 and a preliminary charge sheet was submitted against him and two other persons on 6/7/2016. The Petitioner approached this Court seeking bail in BLAPL No.5748/2016, wherein he was granted interim bail by order dtd. 9/5/2017, which was subsequently extended on different dates till 4/12/2017 and he was finally released on regular bail on 15/2/2018. The C.B.I. approached the Supreme Court of India in Crl. Appeal No.1711/2019 challenging the order of this Court granting bail. By order dtd. 19/1/2019, the Supreme Court cancelled the bail so granted consequent upon which the Petitioner surrendered before the trial Court on 16/12/2019 and was remanded to judicial custody. The Petitioner again approached this Court for bail in BLAPL No.4688/2021. After taking note of all the relevant facts particularly, the order of cancellation of bail passed by the Supreme Court, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, by order dtd. 20/2/2023 disposed of the bail application granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the trial Court for bail. The Petitioner approached the trial Court in B.A. No.736 of 2023, which came to be rejected by order dtd. 8/5/2023. The present bail application has been filed after such rejection.

(2.) Heard Mr. H.M.Dhal, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Sarthak Nayak, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the C.B.I.

(3.) Mr. H.M.Dhal would argue that the Petitioner has been in custody for nearly 5 and half years after accounting for the period during which he was on interim and regular bail. All the offences alleged against the Petitioner are punishable with imprisonment for terms less than 5 years save and except Sec. 409 I.P.C., which is punishable with imprisonment for life or 10 years. The Petitioner having been in custody for more than half of the period of sentence that may be imposed on him in case of his conviction is therefore, entitled to be released on bail. In this context, Mr. Dhal has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of SATENDER KUMAR ANTIL versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION; (2022) 10 SCC 51; wherein it was laid down that in case of economic offences, the gravity of offence, seriousness of the charge and quantum of punishment has to be considered while granting bail. Mr. Dhal further submits that an accused cannot be detained in custody indefinitely for the default of the prosecuting agency in ensuring early completion of the trial. In the instant case, more than 150 witnesses are proposed to be examined as per the charge sheet, but not a single one of them has been examined so far. Under such circumstances, the Petitioner's further detention adversely affects his right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that in the supplementary charge sheet filed in the case by CBI, no further material has been unearthed against him.