Orissa High Court
Nikhilananda Pasupalak vs State Of Odisha on 9 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No. 986 of 2023
Nikhilananda Pasupalak .... Petitioner
Mr. A. Mohanty, Sr. Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. J.P. Patra, Adv (OPID)
CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
ORDER
09.10.2023
Order No.
04. 1. Memo of appearance filed by Mr. A. Mohanty, learned
Senior counsel on behalf of the Petitioner is taken on record.
2. Heard Mr. A. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel for the
Petitioner and Mr. Patra, learned counsel for the OPID.
3. The Petitioner is an accused in connection with G.R. Case
No.8 of 2016 pending in the Court of learned Designated Court under
OPID Act, 2011, Berhampur, Dist-Ganjam, arising out of Odisha
EOW P.S. CID Crime Branch Case No.14 of 2016 for commission of
offence alleged under Sections 420/406/467/468/471/120-B of the IPC
read with Sections 4,5 & 6 of PCMS (Banning) Act, and Section 6 of
OPID Act, 2011.
4. Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for bail
U/s.439 Cr.P.C. by the learned Designated Court under OPID Act,
2011, Berhampur, Dist-Ganjam by order dated 05.01.2023 in the
aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed.
5. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that the
Petitioner is in custody since 31.03.2022 and taking into account the
nature of allegations, further continuance of the Petitioner in custody
is punitive.
6. To substantiate his submission, he has placed reliance on the
depositions of P.Ws.3 to 7.
7. Learned counsel for the OPID, Mr. Patra submits that there
are 27 cited witnesses. Out of whom 7 have been examined and at this
stage, this Court ought not to make a microscopic examination of the
materials on record.
8. Learned counsel for the OPID submits that the Petitioner is
one of the director and authorized signatory of M/s. Success On-line
Services System Pvt. Ltd., (accused No.1) which is accused of duping
investors to the tune of Rs.500 crores in its pan India operation and so
far as Odisha is concerned, the amount is to the tune of
Rs.1,44,41,000/- (Rupees One Crore Forty-Four Lakh Forty-One
Thousand only) and that referring to the report of the RBI,
Bhubaneswar, Odisha, submits that the company of which the
Petitioner is Odisha Head is not authorized to collect deposits from
public. Paragraph 16.9 of the charge sheet is extracted hereunder;
"16.9. The report received from RBI, Bhubaneswar,
Odisha revealed that M/s. Success Online Service
System Pvt. Ltd. is not registered with Reserve Bank
of India under sec.45-IA of the RBI Act, 1934 to
commence or carry on the business of Non-Banking
Financial Institution as defined under section 45-I (a)
of the RBI Act, 1934 and the Reserve Bank has not
authorized the company to collect deposits from
public. It is evident from the aforesaid reply of
Reserve Bank of India that collection of public
deposits by the accused company was completely
illegal unauthorized and violates the norms of
Reserve Bank of India."
9. It is his further submission that the present Petitioner has
prepared forged document impersonating himself as a head of SOSS
Company and he relied on Paragraph 16.15 of the charge sheet which
is extracted hereunder;
"16.15. On due analysis of the documentary and oral
evidence collected so far, it has become clear that the
accused Nikhilananda Pasupalak has prepared a forged
documents, who has also impersonated himself as Head
of the SOSS Company, Odisha and cheated many
investors who have invested in the said Company on the
pretext of providing high rate of return to multiple
investors with dishonest intention in pursuance to the
criminal conspiracy."
10. In the recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Satender Kumar Antil vrs. Central Bureau of Investigation &
another, reported in 2022 (10) SCC 51 the Apex Court held that the
economic offences have to be dealt with on a different scale.
11. It is trite law that during the currency of the trial, the Courts
superior in the hierarchy ought not to make any observation which is
likely to prejudice the impending trial. Keeping in view such time
tested doctrine, this Court refrains from making any observation
relating to the evidentiary value of the depositions of P.Ws.3 to 7 vis-
à-vis the accusation relating to the present Petitioner.
12. Considering the materials on record including the depositions
as referred to above, this Court is not inclined to entertain this bail
application.
13. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.
(V. NARASINGH)
Judge
Santoshi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SANTOSHI LENKA
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 11-Oct-2023 12:00:39
