The severity of the punishment, potential for influencing witnesses, and the seriousness of economic offences are crucial factors in deciding bail applications.

Judgment

B.N. Mahapatra, J.

This bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘Cr. P.C.’) is presented by the accused-applicant Madhusudan Panigrahi.

2. The petitioner is alleged to have committed offence punishable under Sections 465/467/471/406/411/420/506/ 120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘IPC’) read with Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

3. Facts leading to arrest of the petitioner having been elaborately dealt with in the earlier order dated 04.04.2013 passed in BLAPL No.1469/2013 when the order rejecting BLAPL was passed, there is no need to repeat the same in the present order.

4. The matter was before this Court in BLAPL No.1469 of 2013. By judgment dated 04.04.2013, the application for bail was rejected inter alia with following observations: the rival contentions of the parties and keeping in mind the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the prayer for bail made by the petitioners was rejected.

(i) Taking into account the nature and magnitude of the offence and its ramification as alleged, it cannot be said that it is a case of breach of contract simpliciter committed by the petitioners and the same would not constitute any offence under Sections 420 and 406, I.P.C. On the other hand, apparently a prima facie case is made out which constitutes offence under Sections 420 & 406, IPC,

(ii) The plea of income tax raid for not transferring the lands to the applicants is not tenable in law,

(iii) The plea of the petitioners that there are some chaka lands which could not be converted to homestead and chaka lands cannot be fragmented into sub-plots for which lands could not be sold to investors who deposited money with petitioners for purchase of land pursuant to public advertisement floated by the petitioners itself prima facie shows the dishonest intention of the petitioners,

(iv) An undertaking before this Court after the petitioners being faced with criminal liability would not wash away the culpability of the petitioners and that cannot be a ground for grant of bail to the petitioners,

(v) As per petitioners’ own admission, they are not in possession of genuine transferable/saleable homestead land in question to sell the same to informant and other investors in pursuance of their own promise,

(vi) Considering the nature of offence, its magnitude and ramification as alleged, materials available on record, the rival contentions of the parties & keeping in mind the principle of law of laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the prayer for bail made by the petitioners was rejected.

5. Being aggrieved by the order of rejection dated 04.04.2013, the petitioner preferred SLP (Crl) No.3480 of 2013 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and subsequently filed an application along with others seeking permission of the Hon’ble Supreme Court for withdrawal of the said SLP and by order dated 09.05.2013 the said petition was allowed giving liberty to the petitioner (s) if they/he so desire(s) to make an application for grant of bail before the Trial Court.

6. After submission of charge sheet, the petitioner filed an application for grant of bail before the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, who rejected the bail application on the ground that the charge sheet already submitted does not dilute the gravity of the offence in any manner. The bail pleas of the accused persons have already been negated by this Court earlier. Considering all the materials, the bail petition was rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner moved the learned Sessions Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar and the case was transferred to 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar, who after taking into consideration the materials available, the gravity of the offence, the nature and character of the accused persons rejected the bail application. Hence, the present bail application has been filed before this Court.

7. After passing of the earlier order of this Court, charge sheet was submitt