DEBJANI MUKHERJEE Vs. REPUBLIC OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by way of this application U/S.439 of Cr.P.C. seeks for her release on bail in connection with the case in P.M.L.A. No. 148 of 2019 arising out of Economic Offence Wing, Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No. 13 of 2013 for commission of offence U/Ss. 420/406/120B of the IPC read with Ss. 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 (in short, "PCMC Act"), but subsequently charge sheeted for offences punishable U/Ss. 406/409/420/120B of IPC read with Ss. 4, 5 and 6 of PCMC Act pending in the Court of learned Additional District Judge-cum-Special Judge(CBI-I), Bhubaneswar.

(2.) The substance of allegation against the petitioner and others arises out of an FIR lodged by one Rabinarayan Swain in Economic Offence Wing, Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No. 13 dtd. 6/5/2013 for offence punishable U/Ss. 420/406/120B of IPC read with Ss. 4, 5 and 6 of PCMC Act and in such FIR, it is stated by the informant that the Saradha Group of Companies by opening its office at Puri was collecting money from local gullible depositors in different schemes such as RD/FD/MIS in the name of Saradha Reality India Limited and Saradha Garden Resort and Hotel Private Limited through their agents by influencing the depositors on the assurance of high returns with high interest. The petitioner and the head of the company Mr.Sudipta Sen had also conducted a meeting by coming to Puri, but subsequently the branch office at Puri and its nearby areas were closed down leaving the gullible depositors deprived of getting their legitimate amount. The informant also claims to have deposited a sum of Rs.75,000.00 in some scheme like other gullible depositors and the petitioner and others thereby had allegedly cheated crores of Rupees of these innocent depositors, but subsequently, the CBI took over the investigation pursuant to the direction of the Apex Court passed in W.P.(Civil) No. 401 of 2013 and CBI after conducting investigation also submitted charge sheet against the petitioner and others for offence U/Ss. 406/409/420/120B of IPC read with Ss. 4, 5 and 6 of PCMC Act keeping investigation open U/S. 173(8) of Cr.P.C.

(3.) In the course of hearing of bail application, Mr.Habibur Rahaman appearing along with Mr.J.M.Mahapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in jail custody since 22. 04.2013 being arrested by West Bengal Police, but subsequently after CBI took over the investigation of all the cases registered against the petitioner and others got the petitioner remanded in this case with effect from 19/12/2016 and the petitioner has been in judicial custody in this case for more than six years and two months and the allegation against the petitioner is only to the extent of her status as Director of the company, but she had resigned from the company with effect from 14/4/2012 and thereby, the petitioner has no role in this case. Mr.Rahaman has further submitted that despite the petitioner being in custody for more than six years, the trial is yet to commence and there is no need of any custodial interrogation of the petitioner and the petitioner during the course of investigation had cooperated the investigation and there is no allegation against the petitioner that she is likely to tamper with the evidence or avoid the trial. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that since the main allegation is directed against Mr.Sudipta Sen, the Chairman-cum-MD of Saradha Group of Company, there is no need to keep the petitioner who is a lady in custody any further. It is also submitted that the personal liberty of a person is sacrosanct and even an accused cannot be kept inside the custody for indefinite period since bail is the rule and jail is the exception and one of the co-accused namely, Suman Chatopadhya have the privilege of benefit of pre-arrest bail and the petitioner being a respectable lady may kindly be granted bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner has been granted bail by the High Court of Calcutta in another case on similar accusation and the petitioner having suffered incarceration for a substantial period may at least be given the benefit of 436-A of Cr.P.C. which was denied to the petitioner by the learned trial Court on erroneous interpretation of the provision of law. In praying to grant bail to the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the decision in the case of Reena Dutta Vrs. State of Orissa; 2009(1) Crimes 491(Ori) has submitted that in a similar situation, this Court by taking into consideration the status of the petitioner as a woman, the fact of her resignation from the work and her detention for a considerable period, has granted bail to the petitioner Reena Dutta therein.