RABI NARAYAN SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an accused in Laxmisagar P.S. Case No. 45 of 2013 which corresponds to C.T. Case No. 797 of 2013 pending on the file of Smt. S.S. Mishra, J.M.F.C., Bhubaneswar for offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468 read with sections 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He has filed this application under section 439 Cr.P.C. for bail as his prayer for grant of bail was turned down by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar vide order dated 23.05.2016. The petitioner approached this Court earlier on bail in BLAPL No. 2231 of 2015 which was allowed vide order dated 16.07.2015, inter alia, with condition that the petitioner shall furnish cash security to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/-( Rupees Fifty lakh) in the shape of fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the petitioner failed to comply with the terms and conditions imposed in the bail order, he could not be released from custody.

(2.) The factual matrix of the prosecution case as unfolded from the First Information Report lodged by one Chittaranjan Das of Satya Bihar, Palasuni, Bhubaneswar on 25.02.2013 before Inspector in charge of Laxmisagar Police Station is that as the informant was allured with false promise by the petitioner and others who are the Directors of Systematics Fund Management Limited (hereafter 'the Company'), he invested money in the Company. The Company was executing agreements with people to provide them land and flats since 2011. It is further stated that some of the Directors resigned from the Company and the rest of the Directors were not able to fulfill the promise made by the Company. Even though the invested money of the informant matured since June 2012 but the Company did not refund the maturity amount. The office of the Company was closed down and the investors were in darkness as to when they would get back their money. In spite of repeated approach by the informant to the authorities, no fruitful result came out. On the basis of such First Information Report, Laxmisagar P.S. Case No.45 of 2013 was registered on 25.02.2013 under sections 420/467/468/120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. During course of investigation, it came to light that Susanta Kumar Nayak as Managing Director, petitioner as Director along with other associates were running the Company at A-301, 3rd Floor, Acrux Gokul Plaza, Cuttack Road, Bomikhal. The Company was dealing with shares, mutual funds, insurance, Government securities, real estate business, gold and other bonds and working as portfolio Manager for its plants. The informant was assured by the company to be provided with a land and accordingly, he paid cash of Rs.2,10,000/- and the company had made an agreement with the informant to provide land after the completion of maturity period. When the maturity period was over and the informant deposited the agreement before the company authorities, the company authorities neither provided him land nor refunded the money deposited by him. After some days, the Managing Director of the company, the petitioner and others absconded. Some other investors who also paid cash to the company and executed agreements were also cheated. The petitioner was arrested on 27.02.2013 in connection with another case and he confessed his guilt that he along with other Directors have cheated around 100 persons all over Odisha and he was taken on remand in this case. On 25.06.2013 charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner and others under sections 420/467/468/120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code keeping the investigation open for collection of material proof and to arrest the other accused persons.

(3.) Mr. Devashis Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial of the case commenced on 23.07.2013 with the framing of charge and on 16.01.2014 three prosecution witnesses were examined, one more witness was examined on 28.08.2014 and on 18.08.2015 two more witnesses were examined and the case is pending awaiting examination of the rest of the witnesses who are not turning up to give their evidence due to the laches on the part of the prosecution. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the offences are triable by Magistrate and even though the offences are non-bailable but since the trial has not been concluded within a period of sixty days from the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail in view of sub-section (6) of section 437 of the Cr.P.C. Mr. Deepak Kumar, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand opposed the prayer for bail and contended that the petitioner is involved in an economic offence and the provision under sub-section (6) of 437 of the Cr.P.C. is not mandatory and the Magistrate has got power to refuse bail for the reasons to be recorded in writing. The learned counsel further urged that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar has observed that the matter deals with cheating the general public and the petitioner and other co-accused persons hatched out a conspiracy to give effect to the offence by influencing the customers who have lost their hard earned money. The learned counsel further contended that in a case of this nature, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail however in view of the period of detention of the petitioner in judicial custody, appropriate direction can be given to the Trial Court for expeditious disposal of the trial.