MRS. LEENA MAHESH Vs. REPUBLIC OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Mrs. Leena Mahesh Motewar has filed this application under section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking for bail in connection with S.P.E. Case No.29 of 2014 pending in the file of learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (C.B.I.), Bhubaneswar corresponding to R.C. No.34/S/2014- CBI/Kol. dated 05.06.2014 for offences punishable under sections 120-B , 420 , 409 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 (hereafter '1978 Act').

(2.) Sri Basudev Seth, A.S.I. of Police of Bargarh police station lodged the first information report on 12.05.2013 before the Inspector in charge of Bargarh Town police station wherein it is stated that in obedience to the directions of the then I.I.C., Bargarh Town police station, he conducted raid on 11.05.2013 at the Branch Office of Samruddha Jeevan Foods India Ltd. (hereafter 'the company') located at Bandutikra Chowk at Bargarh and it came to light during such raid that the Director General, Director and official staff of the said company entered into a criminal conspiracy with each other and in pursuance of such conspiracy, they were collecting huge deposits from the poor public of rural area alluring of high returns and also to provide them domestic animals like goat, sheep, pig etc. It is further stated that the company was not registered with RBI or SEBI for conducting such type of business/money transaction and investment of public money in their own business and thereby cheating the poor investors.

(3.) The bail application of the petitioner was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar in Bail Application No.876 of 2018 vide order dated 17.07.2018 on the ground that the petitioner was one of the Directors of the company and she was involved in generating the public money and misappropriating the same in connivance with the other co- accused persons and that the further investigation was underway and that the petitioner might influence the material witnesses and even abscond and that it is an economic offence which has affected the society at large.