RAMENDU CHATTOPADHYAY Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an accused in S.P.E. No. 5 of 2014 on the file of learned Special C.J.M.(C.B.I), Bhubaneswar charge-sheeted under Section 120-B read with Sections 420 and 409 of the I.P.C. and under Sections 4 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning)Act, 1978.

(2.) It has been alleged that the present petitioner was the Managing Director of one Tower Infotech Limited having its registered office at Kolkata and branch offices at different places in the country including one at Baliapal in the district of Baleswar, Odisha. The company allegedly collected huge amount of public money through its agents and officials by floating various schemes with promise to give high return within short span of time, but, ultimately the investors did not get back their amount. Originally, the case was registered at Baliapal Police Station vide Baliapal P.S. Case No. 85 of 2013 and subsequently, as per direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the investigation of the case has been taken over by the Central Bureau of Investigation. The petitioner was arrested on 10.03.2016. His bail application has been rejected by the courts below.

(3.) It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's Company with bona fide intention collected money from the public and also has paid the amount with interest as promised. But, subsequently, since the affairs of the Chit Fund Companies throughout the country came to a halt and the matters were taken over by the C.B.I. for investigation, the petitioner's Company suo-motu moved an application before the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court with a prayer to refund the amounts to the investors after selling away its properties and the matter is under constant supervision and monitoring of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta. Copies of certain orders of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in this regard have been placed for perusal. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed before the Court the order dated 08.08.2013 of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta wherein it has been observed that this was not a case of Company having obtained public deposit and thereafter vanished. It was also observed that the petitioner's Company had approached the said Court seeking a direction to the appropriate authorities to enable the petitioner's Company to pay off the members of the public from whom, deposits had been collected. It was further submitted that pursuant to the direction issued by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, S.E.B.I, has taken over the job of selling the properties of the Company by inviting bidders but, since the petitioner is in custody, neither the property is being sold at actual price nor the genuine bidders are coming up to purchase the property, as a result of which, the Company is being deprived of getting the actual value of its properties to pay off the dues of the investors. Hence, it has been submitted that the petitioner should be released on bail further submitting that the petitioner has althrough Co-operated with the investigation.