1. The petitioners Gurmeet Singh and Subrata Bhattacharya seek bail in RC-BDI/2014/E/0004 under Sections 120B r/w Sections 409, 411, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 IPC & 4 & 5 read with Section 6 of the Prize Chits & Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act 1978.

2. Before proceeding in the matter, this Court brought to the notice of learned counsels for both sides, the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 2nd May, 2016 allowing prayer ‘a’ in IA No.5/2016 in Civil Appeal No.13301/2015. Prayer ‘a’ in the application before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was as under:-

“(a) pass an order directing that no Civil Court or other Authority or Forum shall entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of any claim or related matters pertaining to PACL Ltd. and/or its Directors/Promoters/Group Companies/entities/individuals etc., arraying therein as parties/Defendants/Respondents the Justice (Retd.) R.M. Lodha Committee (in the matter of PACL Ltd.), and/or its Chairman and/or its Members and/or the Securities and Exchange Board of India and further no injunction shall be granted by any Court or other Authority or Forum in respect of any action taken or to be taken by the Justice (Retd.) R.M. Lodha Committee (in the matter of PACL Ltd.) and/or its Chairman and/or its Members and/or the Securities and Exchange Board of India, with respect to claims and/or matters relating to investments/deposits etc. in/with PACL Ltd. or its Directors/Promoters/Group/Companies/Entities/Individuals etc.”

3. Both learned senior counsels for the petitioners and learned Spl. PP for the CBI submit that the said prayer was allowed after a Committee under the chairmanship of Justice R.M. Lodha (Retd. Chief Justice of India) was constituted to sell up the properties of the company involved in the above noted FIR so that amounts could be disbursed to the investors. When the investors started filing claims against the Committee, various civil suits and petitions, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed prayer ‘a’ as noted above and directed that no other Court except the Hon’ble Supreme Court can entertain an application in terms of prayer ‘a’ noted above. The present petition relates to trial of the petitioners pursuant to the above noted FIR and the remedies available under the Code of Criminal Procedure during the course of trial are not affected by the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 2nd May, 2016.

4. Learned Senior counsels for the petitioners as a brief background of the case submit that the company M/s Pearls General Finance Ltd. (in short ‘M/s PGF’) was incorporated as a public Company, limited by shares on 19th January, 1983 which was later changed to M/s Pearls Green Forests Ltd. (in short ‘M/s PGFL’). The present FIR relates to M/s Pearl Agrotech Corporation Ltd. (in short ‘M/s PACL’) which was initially incorporated as M/s Gurwant Agrotech Ltd. on 13th February, 1996 and changed to M/s PACL on 2nd April, 1996. In 1998, a public interest litigation was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court alleging non-compliance of relevant provisions while initiating collective investment scheme by the company. Vide order dated 7th October, 1998 the Hon’ble Supreme Court restrained the company from alienating its assets. Finally a retired Judge was appointed to go into the irregularities of the company who submitted a final report on 20th September, 2002 stating that there was no violation committed in the collective investment schemes run by M/s PGFL and M/s PACL. The interim order was thus vacated on 3rd March, 2003. The proceedings were also initiated by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (in short ‘SEBI’). Notices issued by SEBI were challenged before the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan which quashed the same against which SEBI approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Though SEBI sought for an interim order from the Hon’ble Supreme Court that M/s PACL be restrained from further collecting amounts from the investors however no stay was granted. Finally the m