PREETI BHATIA Vs. REPUBLIC OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Preeti Bhatia has filed this application under section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking for bail in connection with RC Case No.47/S/2014-SCB/Kol. dated 5.6.2014 corresponding to SPE No.42 of 2014 pending in the Court of learned Special CJM, CBI, Bhubaneswar in which charge sheet has been submitted against her and others under sections 120-B, 294, 341, 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code and section 3, 4 and 5 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. The petitioner was taken into custody on 10.10.2014 and she moved an application for bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar in Bail Application No.1509 of 2014. The learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 12.11.2014 considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of the offences committed, seriousness of economic offence, larger interest of the society and State and moreover taking into account the progress of investigation was pleased to reject the bail application.

(2.) It reveals from the charge sheet that RC Case No.47/S/2014-SCB/Kol. dated 5.6.2014 was registered treating the First Information Reports of eight cases as original FIR of the case pursuant to the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 9.5.2014 passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No.401 of 2013 filed by Sri Subrata Chattoraj and Writ Petition (Civil) No.413 of 2013 filed by Sri Alok Jena. Those eight cases are Badambadi P.S. Case No.5 of 2013 dated 5.1.2013, Kharvel Nagar P.S. Case No.44(4) of 2013 dated 7.2.2013, Bhanjanagar P.S. Case No.95 of 2013 dated 2.5.2013, Angul P.S. Case No.282 of 2013 dated 3.5.2013, Bargarh Town P.S. Case No.149 of 2013 dated 8.5.2013, Paralakhemundi P.S. Case No.93 of 2013 dated 25.6.2013, Kujanga P.S. Case No.262 of 2013 date 19.8.2013 and Cantonment Road P.S. Case No.76 of 2013 dated 24.9.2013.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Ajaya Kumar Singh submitted that during course of investigation, the house of the petitioner and her parents were raided by CBI but no incriminating documents/materials pertaining to the Chit-Fund Scam was found. He further submitted that on receipt of notice under section 160 Cr.P.C., the petitioner attended the CBI office on 23rd September 2014 and on three subsequent dates and on each date she was properly interrogated by CBI. He further submitted that the petitioner stated before the CBI authorities during interrogations that as per the request of co-accused Pradeep Kumar Sethy, PrismHeights Company was registered before Registrar of Companies, Mumbai on 10.2.2010 and the copies of the Bye-laws and Articles of Association of the Company were also submitted to the CBI. It is further contended that the petitioner was no way connected in the alleged Chit-Fund Scam in any manner and in fact registration of PrismHeights Company was done much prior to the registration of all the AT Group of Companies of co-accused Pradeep Kumar Sethy. It is further contended that co-accused Pradeep Kumar Sethy being the Chief Managing Director of PrismHeights Company transferred a sum of Rs.1,17,83,000/- to the company account of PrismHeights Company and also to the account of the petitioner which were used/spent for production of two TV serials namely "Andaz Hamara Mastana" and "Hum Intezar Karenge" and 32 episodes pertaining to both serials were completed but those serials could not be telecast. It is further contended that series of 32 episodes were handed over to the CBI officer for verification during the interrogation. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner herself had invested huge amount beyond that of Rs.1,17,83,000/- for completion of 32 episodes of TV serials and the amount of Rs.1,17,83,000/- has not been utilized/spent by the petitioner for her personal purpose but utilized for payment of the dues/wages/salaries to various persons whosoever participated for the preparation, production and completion of the two TV serials through cheques. The learned counsel further contended that the names and addresses of all the beneficiaries in respect of Rs.1,17,83,000/- along with the bank statements were duly furnished by the petitioner to CBI officer but with malafide intention those documents were neither taken note of nor were cited as documents in the charge sheet. It is further contended that the petitioner was neither the Director of AT Group of companies nor an agent nor a promoter/motivator nor she had played any role with regard to collection of any amount from the public by any of the AT Group of Companies. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner is in custody since 10.10.2014 and in the meantime co-accused persons namely Ranjan Kumar Das and Pravat Kumar Tripathy who were also charge sheeted by the CBI have been released on bail by this Court in applications under section 439 Cr.P.C. Similarly another co-accused i.e., ex-Advocate General Sri Ashok Mohanty has also been released on bail under section 439 Cr.P.C. by the learned Sessions Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar. He further contended that that the petitioner is a lady and her father is aged about 75 years who is suffering from heart and other related diseases and is also bed ridden and her mother is also a patient and there is no male member in the family of the petitioner to maintain and look after them. It is further contended that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petitioner in jail for indefinite period and taking into account the proviso to section 437(1) Cr.P.C., the petitioner's bail application should be favourably considered. He further contended that the petitioner is ready and willing to furnish bank guarantee as well as surety for her release on bail.