BRAJA SUNDAR MISHRA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Here is an application under Sec. 439 of Crimial P.C. to release the petitioner on bail as there is allegations of commission of offences under Sections 420/467/468/471/406/120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 and Sec. 6 of the Odisha Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 2011.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was the Managing Director of M/s. Land India Real Estate Private Limited and M/s. Land India Assets Limited. It is alleged inter alia that the present petitioner and other Directors of these two Companies induced the general public to make deposits in different schemes of the company so that the amount invested will be doubled and accordingly, the valuable depositors deposited amount with a hope of receiving a good amount of interest thereon. It is the case of the prosecution that being assured by petitioner and other Directors under different schemes, public deposited an amount of Rs. 5,69,45,602.00 in M/s. Land India Real Estate Private Limited and Rs. 2,81,89,900.00 in M/s. Land India Assets Limited. Altogether Rs.8,51,35,502.00 collected from 1985 persons on the assurance given by the present petitioner as Managing Director and other Directors of the company to the poor persons that their amount will be doubled in two years. When the depositors did not get back their money and went to the concerned company to demand their claim, they found the companies were under lock and key. It is alleged inter alia that prima facie case has been made out against the petitioner for committing serious economic offences. Although the charge sheet has been submitted, but in the event of release of the petitioner on bail, it will give a wrong message to the society and the depositors and there is every likelihood of tampering with the prosecution witnesses going to be examined. Submissions :

(3.) Mr. S. S. Ray, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was the Managing Director of above two companies but the agents were collecting money from the depositors with the assurance of making double of the amount payable.