Back
2015 Supreme(Ori) 313
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
S.K. SAHOO, J.
Purna Chandra Rath - Petitioner
Versus
State of Orissa - Opp. Party
BLAPL Nos. 3235 & 3236 of 2015
Decided on : 25.09.2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: M/s. Sanjit Mohanty, Digambar Mishra, Suryakanta Satapathy
For the Opp. Party: Mr. Deepak Kumar Pani A.S.C.
For the Informant: Mr. Bijan Ray, Mr. Rajat Kumar Rath, Mr. Chinmay Choudhury, B. Mohanty, S. Mohanty, B. Moharana
Headnote:1. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - Section 439 - Charge sheet u/s. 420, 408, 409, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120B, IPC - Bail Collected oral and documentary evidence prima facie shows the involvement of the petitioner in the crime - Investigation so far conducted suggest that the petitioner has misappropriated huge fund of the company running to crores of rupees by divesting the same to his own companies - Involvement of the petitioner in the deep routed conspiracy in the commission of the economic offence causing huge loss to M/s. "K" is prima facie apparent - Held, even if the co-accused has been released on bail but taking into account the fact that further investigation of the case is under progress to unearth further evidence and other aspects of criminal conspiracy, it would not be proper at this stage to release the petitioner on bail - Bail application rejected.
2. BAIL - Economic offences - Economic offences are considered grave offences as it affect the economy of the country as a whole and such offences having deep rooted conspiracy and involving huge loss of public fund are to be viewed seriously - Economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design solely with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community - In such type of offences, while granting bail, the Court has to keep in mind, inter alia, the larger interest of public and State - The nature and seriousness of an economic offence and its impact on the society are always important considerations in such a case and those aspects must squarely be dealt with by the Court while passing an order on bail applications.
(Para 8)
3. BAIL - Parity - Parity cannot be a sole ground but is one of the grounds for consideration of the question of bail - The principle of grant of bail on parity cannot be allowed to be carried to an absurd or illogical conclusion so as to put a Judge in tight and strait jacket to grant bail automatically - There may be cases where a Judge may not simply take a different view from the Judge who granted bail earlier to a co-accused but there may be exception where the conscience of the Judge revolts in granting bail, in such a situation the Judge may choose to depart from the rule of parity by recording his reasons.
(Para 12)
4. BAIL - Grant of - Considerations - Detailed examination of evidence and elaborate discussions on merit of the case need not be taken at the stage of consideration of the bail application - The discretion should be used in a proper and judicious manner and the Court must take note of the nature of accusation the nature of supporting evidence, the severity of punishment in case of conviction, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the evidence and criminal antecedent etc.
(Para 14)
JUDGMENT :
S.K. Sahoo, J.
The petitioner Purna Chandra Rath in BLAPL No. 3235 of 2015 is an accused in EOW, Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No. 16 of 2014 which arises out of Paradeep P.S. Case No.110 of 2014 registered under sections 420, 408, 409, 467, 468, 471 read with section 120-B of Indian Penal Code corresponding to G.R. Case No. 397 of 2014 pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C (P), Kujang and he is in custody since 09.06.2015. He has approached this Court in an application under section 439 Cr.P.C. for bail as his prayer for bail was turned down by the learned Asst. Sessions Judge, Kujang in BLAPL No. 25 of 2015 vide order dated 17.06.2015.
The very same petitioner Purna Chandra Rath in BLAPL No. 3236 of 2015 is also an accused in EOW, Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No. 17 of 2014 which arises out of I.C.C. Case No. 76 of 2014 (Paradeep P.S. Case No. 138 of 2014) registered under sections 406, 408 and 420 read with section 120-B of Indian Penal Code corresponding to G.R. Case No. 508 of 2014 pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C (P), Kujang and he was taken on remand in this case after he was taken into custody since 09.06.2015 in G.R. Case No. 397 of 2014. He has approached this Court in an application under section 439 Cr.P.C. for bail as his prayer for bail was turned down by the learned Asst. Sessions Judge, Kujang in BLAPL No. 24 of 2015 vide order dated 17.06.2015.
Since in both these two bail applications, the petitioner is the same so also the informant and accusations in the two cases are also identical in nature which are being investigated by the same investigating agency and also pending in the same Court, with the consent of the parties, the bail applications were heard analogously and the same are disposed of this common order.
2. So far as EOW P.S. Case No. 16 of 2014 is concerned, on 25.4.2014 one Amit Kumar Choudhury, Manager and Office-in-Charge of Karam Chand Thapar and Bros. (Coal Sales) Ltd. (hereafter for short “the company”), Paradeep lodged a First Information Report before Inspector-in-Charge, Paradeep Police Station stating therein that accused Rakesh Kumar Chopra was appointed in the company in the year 1980 and later he officiated in the capacity of Deputy Vice President at Paradeep Branch of the company. Though there was a condition for employment in the Company that the employee should not do his own business or any business related activity with any other company without the consent of the company but accused Mr. Rakesh Kumar Chopra breached the terms of employment and formed his own companies such as Avisons Works Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Maa Durga Logistics and cheated the company by diverting the company’s business and also doing business with the business competitors of the company and diverted company’s fund for his self illegal enrichment. It is further stated in the FIR that by wrongfully carrying out parallel business similar to that of company’s business and illegal act of continued breach, there was significant financial loss to the company over a period of time. It is further stated that accused Rakesh Kumar Chopra forged and fabricated the bank statements of company’s bank account, forged the statement of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Paradeep Branch and sent forged statements to the Head Office at Kolkata. It is further stated that the forged statements were printed and manufactured by accused Rakesh Kumar Chopra.
It is further stated in the F.I.R. that the petitioner who was the Senior Manager, Administration was also running parallel business in the name of his own Companies i.e., S.R. Associates, Sonal Distributors and Aar Pee Carriers (accused Rakesh Kumar Chopra’s Company) and diverting the company’s fund by forging and tampering instruments such as cheques, bank advice notes and other related documents. It is further stated that there was mandate from the company that all the cheques/bank advices were to be signed by two signatories i.e. one from company’s Head Office at Kolkata and the other from t
