SWETANGA PATTANAIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Swetanga Pattanaik is an accused in EOW, Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No.23 of 2015 in which charge sheet has been submitted under sections 420/467/468/471/ 406/120 -B of the Indian Penal Code and section 6 of the Odisha Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 2011 (hereafter '2011 OPID Act') and sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 (hereafter '1978' Act) which corresponds to C.T. Case No.39 of 2015 pending in the Court of learned Presiding Officer, Designated Court, OPID Act, Cuttack. The bail application of the petitioner was rejected by the learned Trial Court on 11.2.2016.

(2.) On 27.3.2015 on the First Information Report of Deepak Kumar Baral and others before Officer -in -charge, Olatpur Police Station, Olatpur P.S. Case No.26 of 2015 was registered under sections 420/406/120 -B of the Indian Penal Code and section 18 of the OPID Act, 2011. As per the First Information Report, it is the prosecution case that one Chit Fund Company namely Ashirbaad was running since 2009 having its branches at Adashpur, Jagatsinghpur, Banmalipur, Bhubaneswar, Khurda, Tangi, Bhapur, Gopalpur, Daspalla, Badamba, Narsinghpur, Ganjam, Nuapatna, Berhampur, Jajpur etc. Different schemes like Ashribaad Goat Rearing India Ltd., Ashribaad Future Care, Ashribaad Multitech and Infracon Ltd., Ashirbaad Multipurpose Cooperative Ltd. and Ashribaad Multi Trade (P) Ltd. were floated and huge amount of deposits were collected from public with promise for providing higher rate of interest. It is stated that from Adashpur Branch alone, the company has collected more than 2 crores from 3600 depositors and since the month of May 2013, the company failed to return interest as well as capital amount to the investors. The Head Office as well as Branch Offices were closed. When the agents tried to contact the Directors over telephone, either they were not responding to the phone calls or they were threatening the agents. The depositors stated to have suffered huge loss in the process of investment in Ashirbaad. While the investigation was under progress, as per the direction of this Court passed in CRLMP No.1060 of 2015, EOW, CID, CB, Bhubaneswar assumed charge of investigation of the case vide Office order No.190/EOW dated 23.11.2015 and reregistered the case as EOW, Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No.23 of 2015 and Inspector of Police Iti Das of EOW, Crime Branch, Bhubaneswar took over investigation of the case. During course of investigation, the informant and other witnesses were examined and incriminating documents from different offices were seized, pass books and money receipt slips were also seized from the investors. Registers of the Directors were also seized. On verification of different documents and records, the Investigating Officer found that the petitioner was acting as Chief Executive of M/s. Ashirbaad Multipurpose Cooperative Ltd. The petitioner along with other Directors collected cash from the investors and issued bonds and certificates to the investors under the signatures as Chief Executive in favour of Ashirbaad Multipurpose Cooperative Ltd., Ashirbaad Goat Rearing India Ltd. and Ashirbaad Multitech and Infracon Ltd. The Investigating Officer verified documents from ROC, Cuttack and found that the petitioner was the Managing Director of M/s. Ashirbaad Multitrade Company and acting as one of the Directors of M/s. Ashirbaad Goat Rearing India Ltd. The bank records indicate that Ashirbaad Group of Companies has collected more than Rs.5 crores from the depositors with assurance to repay the depositors with high rate of interest. It was further ascertained during investigation that the companies were not authorised by RBI to collect public deposit and not even listed in any of the stock exchanges of India. The Directors closed down the Corporate Office as well as Branch Offices functioning in Bhubaneswar and different places in the year 2014 and absconded. It was further revealed that the company was paying interest to the old depositors out of the deposit of new depositors and thereby involved in money circulation activities even though the company was not registered as Non -Banking Financial Company under Reserve Bank of India. The accused persons defaulted to return the principal amount of deposit as well as payment of interest on the said deposit and also failed to render service for which the deposit was made. The Investigating Officer found from the facts and circumstances of the case as well as from the documentary evidence that prima facie case under sections 467/468/471/420/406/120 -B of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 4, 5 and 6 of the 1978 Act as well as section 6 of 2011 OPID Act are clearly made out and accordingly submitted charge sheet against the petitioner and others keeping the investigation open under section 173(8) Cr.P.C. for the arrest of other directors, examination of number of duped investors, seizure of documents as well as movable and immovable property of the company.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is in jail custody since 03.01.2016 and there is no prima facie case so as to attract the ingredients of the offences under which charge sheet has been submitted. It is further contended that the FIR was registered as Olatpur P.S. Case No. 26 of 2015 and subsequently the very FIR was reregistered as EOW, Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No. 23 of 2015 which is not permissible in the eye of law. It is further contended that the investigating agency has created the whole case basing on conjectures and surmises. He further contended that since there is no chance of absconding or tampering with the evidence, the bail application of the petitioner may be favourably considered. The learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and contended that not only there are ocular evidence but also documentary evidence which indicate the involvement of the petitioner in crime. It was further urged that the manner in which innocent depositors have been cheated of their hard earned money and the petitioner has gained wrongfully, it is not proper to release the petitioner on bail when further investigation is under progress.