Bhagaban Palai vs State Of Odisha
2023 Latest Caselaw 3289 Ori

        1




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                 BLAPL No.12552 of 2022

             Bhagaban Palai                     ....                  Petitioner


                                         -versus-

             State of Odisha                    ....             Opposite Party


                       For Petitioner : Mr. S.P. Sarangi, Advocate
                                        Mr. S. Mohanty, Advocate
                       For Opposite Party : Mr. A.K. Nayak, Adv (OPID)

                 CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
                                 Date of hearing :10.04.2023

                                  Date of Order:.12.04.2023
Order No.
 09.        1.      Heard learned counsel Mr. S. Mohanty on behalf of the
            petitioner and Mr. A.K. Nayak, learned counsel for the OPID.
            2.      The petitioner is an accused in connection with G.R. Case
            No.14 of 2019, pending in the Court of the learned Presiding
            Officer, Designated Court under OPID Act, Berhampur, Ganjam,
            arising out of Polasara P.S. Case No.115 of 2016 for commission of
            alleged offences under Sections 420/409/471/506/34 of IPC and
            Section 4 and 5 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme
            (banning) act, 1978 and Section 6 of the OPID Act.
            3.      Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for bail
            U/s.439 Cr.P.C. by the learned Presiding Officer, Designated Court
            under OPID Act, Berhampur, Ganjam by order dated 02.12.2022 in
            the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed.
            4.      It is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner is
            in custody since 21.10.2022 and as charge sheet has already been

                                                                             Page 1 of 6
 submitted on 16.02.2023, his further continuance in custody is not
warranted.
5.       It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the principal accused Puspa Sethi has been released
on bail by this Court by order dated 05.03.2021 in BLAPL No.3176
of 2020. Hence inter alia on the ground of parity, he ought to be
released on bail.
6.       Per contra, the learned counsel for the State opposes the
prayer for bail.
7.       It is submitted by him that this Court by order dated
02.02.2023

in BLAPL No.12772 of 2022 has rejected the bail application of petitioners therein namely Ghanashyam Moharana and Dinabandhu Moharana and that the petitioner's role is more akin to the petitioners whose bail application which were rejected by this Court. Hence, opposes the prayer for release on the ground of parity.

8. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforementioned BLAPL No.12772 of 2022 was taken up for consideration when the investigation relating to the role of the petitioners therein was in progress.

Hence, it is submitted that the same ought not to deter the Court to consider the bail application of the petitioner, on merits.

9. The accusation relating to the petitioner as reflected in the charge sheet is extracted herein under for convenience of ready reference;

xxx xxx xxx "........From the investigation, it is ascertained that in the year 2010 a company in the name of 'Krutibibha had opened a Branch Office at Polasara and Balugaon. The head office was at

Berhampur. It was running its business in the names of 1. Krutibibha Agro Ltd, 2. Krutibibha Bioproducts Ltd, 3.Krutibibha Media and Entertainment Pvt. Ltd, 4. Krutibibha Emu Farm India Private Ltd, 5. Krutibibha Corporation Ltd and 6. Krutibibha Credit Cooperative Societies Ltd. The entire business was being managed by Dhirendra Kumar Sethi being assisted by his wife Puspa Sethi, Tapan Sethi and others. The said Dhirendra Kumar Sethi had formed the above noted companies by taking the accused Ghanashyam Maharana as Board member/subscriber of Krutibibha Agro Ltd., the accused Kashinath Nahak as Board members/subscriber of Krutibibha Credit Cooperative Ltd, the accused Bhagaban Palai as Board member/subscriber of Krutibibha Corporation & Krutibibha Bioproduct Ltd........"

                          xxx       xxx      xxx
9.A.     And thereafter, it is stated that the present petitioner helped

and assisted Dhirendra Ku. Sethi, his wife Puspa Sethi and Tapan Ku. Sethi in collecting about Rs.7 crores from 7424 persons/depositors by way of deposit, by engaging 700 agents giving false assurance of doubling the principal amount in only four to six years. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the OPID that such collection was made without any license and authority.

9.B. The charge sheet refers to certificate of incorporation, Memorandum of association, Articles of association in respect of Krutibibha Group of Companies.

10. It is apt to note that the allegation in respect of the petitioner as Board member/subscriber relates to (i) Krutibibha Corporation and (ii) Krutibibha Bioproduct Ltd.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Mohanty has placed on record by way of additional affidavit, the Company Master Data of Krutibibha Corporation obtained from Ministry of Corporate Affairs website. Copy of which has been served on the learned counsel for the State indicating that following are continuing as directors from the dates as indicated below;

         Name                    Begin date
 Tapan Kumar Sethi               13.04.2011
 Ranjit Ku. Sethi                13.04.2011
 Dayanidhy Behera                03.10.2012

11.A. And, in respect of Krutibibha Bioproducts Ltd.

   Name                          Begin date
 Puspa Sethi                     15.12.2010
 Tapan Sethi                     15.12.2010
 Ranjit Ku Sethi                 15.12.2010

11.B. Further list of allottees of Krutibibha Corporation and Krutibibha Bioproducts Ltd. has been placed on record which ex- facie do not reflect the name of the petitioner.

12. Board Resolution of 2012 of Krutibibha Bioproducts Ltd. and statutory Form No.32 of the Companies Act of the said Bioproducts limited indicating the appointment of Puspa Sethi, Direndra Ku. Sethi, Ranjit Ku. Sethi and Tapan Ku. Sethi as directors is also relied upon.

13. Similarly Krutibibha Corporation Resolution of 2013 reflecting the names of Tapan Ku. Sethi, Ranjit Ku. Sethi and Dayanidhi Behera is also placed on record.

14. Relying on the same, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the FIR was filed in the year 2016, the petitioner was arrested after lapse of 6 years without any rhyme and

reason, which is fortified from the documents placed on record that the petitioner was never at the helm of the affairs of the two companies i.e., (i) Krutibibha Corporation and (ii) Krutibibha Bioproduct Ltd.

15. Mr. Nayak, leaned counsel for the OPID though opposes such submission yet, no material is placed on record to rebut such assertion of the petitioner.

16. Learned counsel for the OPID relying on the statement of CSW Nos.29 and 30, Rabindra Pradhan and Sashi Pradhan respectively states that the petitioner was actively engaged in motivating the gullible investors and since this is an economic offence, the petitioner ought not to be released on bail. And, in this context, relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vrs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2013) 7 SCC 439.

16.A. This Court perused the statement relied upon. From the tenor of the same, it can be seen that it is unequivocally stated that the persons who are running the company were Dhirendra Ku. Sethi, his wife Puspa Sethi and his relative Tapan Sethi though name of the petitioner is also mentioned along with others.

17. As noted, co-accused Puspa Sethi has been released on bail by this Court by order dated 05.03.2021 in BLAPL No.3176 of 2020.

18. It is also apposite to take note that relating to the self-same group, petitioner was arrayed as an accused in G.R. Case No.372 of 2014 on the file of learned J.M.F.C. Banpur arising out of Banpur P.S. Case No.246 of 2014 and by order dated 26.02.2015, this Court directed release of the petitioner.

19. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while releasing the petitioner on bail in the said case, this Court had

specifically considered the aspect that the petitioner is not the managing director and in fact was an employee.

20. Hence on a conspectus of materials on record, taking into account the release of one of the principal accused Puspa Sethi and the materials on record which prima facie do not lend credence to the claim of the prosecution that the petitioner was at the helm of the affairs of (i) Krutibibha Corporation and (ii) Krutibibha Bioproduct Ltd, it is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail on such terms to be fixed by the learned Court in seisin.

21. Additionally, it is directed that the petitioner shall not leave the State of Odisha without express permission of the Court in seisin and shall cooperate with the ongoing investigation.

22. The BLAPL accordingly disposed of. No costs.

(V. NARASINGH) Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 12th of April, 2023/Santoshi