Orissa High Court
Mohan Kumar Parida vs State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Party on 7 March, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.5771 of 2024
Mohan Kumar Parida ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Mr.Prasanta Kishore Ray, Sr.
Advocate
along with
Mr.Krushna Chandra Dash,
Advocate
-versus-
State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Party
Represented By Adv. -
Mr.J.P.Patra, Adv. for the
OPID
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
07.03.2025
Order No.
04. 1. The present bail application has been filed under Section
439 of the Cr.P.C. thereby challenging the impugned order of
rejection dated 03.06.2024 passed by the Presiding Officer
Designated Court under the OPID Act, Cuttack in C.T. Case
No.16 of 2024 for commission of a crime punishable under
Sections 4, 5, 6 of the Prize Chit and Money Circulation Scheme
(Banning) Act, 1978 read with Section 6 of the OPID Act, 2011
further read with Section 66 of the I.T. Act along with the
offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 68, 471 and
120-B of I.P.C.
2. The prosecution case, as unfurled from the F.I.R. lodged
before E.O.W., Bhubaneswar, which was registered as E.O.W.
P.S. Case No.06 of 2024, reveals that while the informant was
working as Assistant Manager in Human Welfare Credit Co-
Operative Society, Bhubaneswar, he came to learn from his
friend, namely, Panu Chandra Prusty, who is a member of the
company named as 'M/s. Way to Add India Pvt. Ltd'. The
company had assured to provide various products with a promise
of high return under different schemes on capital investment.
Believing the assurance, the informant invested a total sum of
Rs.44,47,500/-, on different occasions, through different modes
of pay to the abovenamed company. Initially the Informant
received some lucrative returns on his investment, however, later
on, he did not receive any return. When the informant
complained regarding the same, the company did not pay any
heed to his request for refund of his money. It has further been
alleged that the informant was cheated by the company and that
the company has misappropriated his hard-earned money.
Accordingly, an E.O.W. was registered and the investigation of
the case was commenced.
3. During investigation of the case, the Petitioner was
arrested and taken into custody on 28.05.2024. It is since the
date of his arrest that the Petitioner has been languishing in
custody. Eventually, the Petitioner had moved a regular bail
application before the Designated Court under the OPID Act,
however, his bail application has been rejected by virtue of the
impugned order dated 03.06.2024.
4. Mr. P.K. Ray, learned Senior Counsel representing the
Petitioner at the outset contended that the bail application of the
Petitioner was rejected vide order dated 03.06.2024 principally
on three grounds:- a) that the informant has not got back the
principal amount that was deposited, b) that the case is at a
nascent stage, c) in the event the Petitioner is enlarged on bail,
there exists a chance of tampering with the prosecution
evidence. He further contended that the petitioner has been
languishing in custody for the last 7 months due to no fault of his
own.
5. To repeal the allegation of the prosecution and to counter
the order rejecting the bail of the Petitioner, learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner further contended that in the meantime
the investigation has been concluded and the final charge sheet
has been filed on 18.09.2024. Therefore, there is no chance of
tampering with the prosecution evidence and no further custodial
interrogation of the Petitioner is required in connection with the
present case. He further submitted that as per the bank ledger
filed before this Court, the informant had contributed
Rs.9,14,900/- and as per the allegation of the informant the same
amount has not been paid back as of yet. Moreover, it is revealed
by the bank details that money, to the tune of Rs.10,32,630/-, has
been transferred to the Informant's account through ICICI Bank
and Bank of India. Additionally, since the charge sheet has been
filed, it cannot be said that the case is at a nascent stage. Thus,
the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner
contended that the grounds on which his bail application was
rejected by the learned trial court no more survive.
6. In the course of his argument, Mr. Ray, learned Senior
Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, referred to
Section 3 of the OPID Act and contended that a case can be said
to have been well made out under the OPID Act and the
cognizance thereof can be taken by the Designated Court subject
to the rider that the complaints have been received from a
number of depositors alleging financial irregularities and default
in returning the deposited amount, along with interest, and
failure on the part of the accused to provide the service as
promised. Further, referring to the allegation made in the present
case, learned Senior Counsel contended that in the present case
there is only one informant/depositor. Therefore, in view of the
provisions contained under Section 3 of the OPID Act, no
cognizance of any offence under the OPID Act can be taken by
the Designated Court.
7. Learned Senior Counsel would further argue that the word
"Money" as defined under Section 2(b) of the P.C.M.C.S.
(Banning) Act, 1978 means and includes a Cheque, Postal
Order, Demand Draft, Telegraphic Transfer or Money Order.
However, the same does not include cash. Since, as per the
F.I.R. allegation, the complainant has stated that he had
deposited cash, therefore, no offence is made out under the
provisions of the P.C.M.C.S. (Banning) Act, 1978. Moreover, no
receipt in support of such allegation of cash payment was
produced before the Investigating Officer.
8. At this point, it is pertinent to mention that with regard to
the allegation of the informant that he had invested a total sum
of Rs.44,47,500/- including cash deposit, this Court had directed
the I.O. to file an affidavit. The affidavit filed by the I.O. in
para-7 re-affirms the contention of the Petitioner that as per the
bank details a sum of Rs.10,32,630/- has been transferred by the
informant to the petitioner through his bank account. He further
contended that as per the affidavit of the I.O., the Petitioner is at
best liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, if the cash component
is not taken into consideration.
9. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner further referred
to the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Anupam
Pradhan vs. State of Orissa (OPID), in BLAPL No. 10279 of
2023, decided on 19.03.2024 and contended before this Court
that an important consideration for grant of bail is the "Tripod
Test". While applying the Tripod Test to the facts of the present
case, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that
since the charge sheet has been submitted there is possibility of
the Petitioner influencing witnesses. Further, since the entire
case is based on documentary evidence, there is no apprehension
of tampering with prosecution evidence either. With regard to
the issue of flight risk, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner
submitted that this Court can always take care of the flight risk
posed by the Petitioner by imposing certain stringent conditions.
He further contended that the petitioner is ready and willing to
abide by any stringent conditions that would be imposed by this
Court in the event of the release of the Petitioner on bail.
10. Mr. J.P. Patra, learned counsel appearing for the OPID on
the other hand objected to the release of the petitioner on bail. At
the outset, Mr. Patra reminded this Court of the observations of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the series of judgments with
regard to grant of bail in cases involving economic
offences/White Collar Crimes. He further submitted that taking
into consideration the gravity and seriousness of the allegation
and the fact that a huge sum of money is involved in the alleged
crime, the Petitioner should not be enlarged on bail. Further,
referring to the factual background of the present case, learned
counsel for the OPID contended that the accused-petitioner,
being the Managing Director of the company in question, has not
only cheated the informant but also many other persons by
alluring them with high returns under different financial schemes
floated by the company. The investors like the Petitioner being
allured by the promise made by the company have invested their
hard-earned money in the company in question. However, the
company has failed to pay the returns, including the interest
accrued on their investment, as has been promised by the said
company initially. He further submitted that the accused-
Petitioner, who is the Managing Director of the company, has
misappropriated crores of rupees worth of public money which
directly affects the economy of the country. On such grounds,
Mr. Patra, learned counsel for the OPID submitted that the bail
application of the petitioner be rejected at this juncture. Finally,
he has also expresses his apprehension with regard to possibility
of the Petitioner absconding from justice and tampering with the
prosecution evidence in the event the Petitioner is released on
bail.
11. Heard learned counsels appearing from both sides. Perused
the case diary as well as materials on record.
12. On perusal of the impugned rejection order, this Court
observes that the Petitioner was arrested on 28.05.2024 and,
before filing of the charge-sheet, his bail application was moved
before the learned Designated Court. The Learned Designated
Court, vide order dated 03.06.2024, rejected the bail application
of the Petitioner. As such, the Court below has not committed
any illegality. However, during the pendency of the present bail
application, the investigation has progressed substantially and
the charge sheet has been filed on 18.09.2024. Thus, the same
repeals the apprehension of the trial court that the investigation
is at a nascent stage. Moreover, considering the fact that the final
charge sheet has been filed and the case of the prosecution is
based on documentary evidence and such evidence having been
seized by the Investigating Agency, there exists no apprehension
of the Petitioner tampering with the evidence or influencing any
of the prosecution witnesses. Further, taking into consideration
the affidavit, dated 19.11.2024, filed by the Investigating
Officer, this Court observes that the total quantum of fraud in the
present case appears to be around Rs.44,47,500/- and that the
present Petitioner being the Managing Director is the authorized
signatory of the bank account. It has also been alleged that the
present petitioner has unauthorizedly collected crores of rupees
from the public without having any permission from any
competent authority viz-a-viz RBI or SEBI. Further, Para-8 of
the affidavit clearly indicates that a total sum of Rs.44,47,500/-
was deposited by the informant. Out of the amount deposited, a
cash deposit of Rs.28,92,500/- has been made and the balance
amount of Rs.15,55,000/- has been deposited directly to the
account of the Petitioner. It has also been stated in the affidavit
that in course of investigation a total of 26 victims have been
examined and that the total fraud would be around
Rs.4,43,81,047/-. It has also been indicated that the investigation
has kept open under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. to find out
more about the money trail.
13. On a careful analysis of the factual background of the
present case, further taking note of the materials on record, and
keeping in view the period of custodial detention of the
Petitioner for almost 7 months, this Court is inclined to release
the Petitioner on bail subject to imposition of stringent terms and
conditions.
14. Hence, it is directed that the Petitioner be released on bail
in the aforesaid case on furnishing bail bond of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh) with two local solvent sureties each for the
like amount to the satisfaction of the Court in seisin over the
matter on such terms and conditions as would be deemed just
and proper. However, while imposing conditions the learned
court below shall do well to add the following additional
conditions:-
I. the Petitioner shall cooperate with the
Investigating Officer and accordingly, appear before
the I.O. as and when his presence is required in
course of further investigation and provide all
materials in his possession;
II. the Petitioner shall not commit any similar
criminal offence;
III. the Petitioner, in course of trial, shall attend
the trial court on each and every date of posting
without fail unless his personal appearance is
dispensed with. In the event the Petitioner fails to
appear before the court without the sufficient cause
for such dis-appearance, learned court below would
be at liberty to treat this order as revoked and
proceed against the Petitioner in accordance with
law;
IV. the Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction
of the trial court without prior permission of the
learned court in seisin over the matter. He shall also
deposit his travel documents including his passport
before the learned trial court. In the event, the
petitioner does not have any passport, then he shall
file an affidavit indicating such fact before the
learned trial court;
V. the Petitioner shall keep the I.O. as well as
the court in seisin over the matter informed with
regard to the change of his address, telephone
number and other digital details;
VI. in the event it is found by the trial court that
the Petitioner is misusing the liberty granted by this
order, liberty is granted to the trial court to initiate
proceeding against the him for commission of
offence under Section 174-A of the I.P.C. in
accordance with law.
It is further clarified that the court in seisin over the case is
at liberty to cancel the bail granted to the Petitioner without
further reference to this Court in the event any of the above
conditions are violated or a case for cancellation of the bail is
otherwise made out.
15. Additionally, the Petitioner shall also furnish a cash
security to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh) before
the learned Court in seisin over the matter, which shall be kept in
any Nationalized bank in an interest bearing account, initially for
a period of one year, which will be renewable from time to time
till conclusion of trial and the same shall abide by the final
outcome of the trial in the present case.
16. It is further directed that release of the Petitioner shall also
be subject to furnishing a property security of Rs.40,00,000/-
(Rupees Forty Lakh) to the satisfaction of the learned court in
seisin over the matter.
17. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules.
( A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
Anil
Digitally Signed Page 11 of 11.
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 07-Mar-2025 14:10:47
