GAUTAM KUNDU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with SPE Case No.34 of 2014 corresponding to TR Case No.4 of 2017 (CBI/SCB/SIT/Kolkata Case No.RC.39(S) of 2014) pending in the file of learned Additional Special Judge (CBI-1), Bhubaneswar, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.420/408/409/120-B/34 of IPC r/w Ss. 4/5/6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 (in short, "the Act").

(2.) The brief facts and allegation against the petitioner in precise are that on the report of affected investors, initially three cases were registered against the Rose Valley Hotels and Entertainments Ltd. arraying its Managing Directors and two other employees vide Buguda PS Case No.75 of 2013 U/Ss.420/34 of IPC and Ss. 4/5/6 of the Act; Nuapada PS Case No.82 of 2013 U/Ss.420/120-B of IPC and Ss. 4/5/6 of the Act and Jeypore Town PS Case No.71 of 2013 U/Ss.408/409/420 of IPC and Ss. 4/5/6 of the Act, but basing on the direction of the Apex Court passed in W.P.(C) No.401 of 2013, 44 cases were registered by the CBI/SCB/SIT/Kolkata in respect of different companies collecting money from the public in Odisha and, accordingly, the CBI took up the investigation consolidating the aforesaid three PS Cases in Odisha by registering a case vide RC.39(S)/2014-Kol on 5/6/2014 for commission of offences U/Ss.420/ 408/ 409/ 120-B/ 34 of IPC and Ss. 4/5/6 of the Act. The allegation against the petitioner is that he being the Chairman of Rose Valley Group of Companies had collected huge sum of money to the tune of around Rs.17,378.00 Crores from the general public and gullible investors falsely assuring them of high returns, but such collection of investment was without any authorization either from RBI or SEBI and later on, he did not fulfill the assurance given to the investors by refunding their dues invested in camouflage schemes. It is also alleged that the petitioner and his Group of Company had taken investment from around Rs.32.00 Lakhs depositors, but later duped them by not paying their dues.

(3.) Heard, Mr. Rajeev Lochan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sarthak Nayak, learned counsel for the CBI and perused the record.