2016 Supreme(Ori) 187
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
C.R. DASH, J.
Prasanta Kumar Dash – Petitioner
Versus
Republic of India – Opposite Party
BLAPL No. 2378 of 2015
Decided On : 27-04-2016
For the Petitioner: M/s. Deepak Narendra, B.B. Lenka, M/s. Bimal Prasanna Tripathy and K.K. Pradhan.
For the Opposite Parties :M/s. K. Raghavacharyulu and V. Narasingh, Advocates for the C.B.I.
The court emphasized the importance of considering the nature of accusations, evidence collected, and potential impact on ongoing investigations when deciding on bail applications.
Headnote:
BAIL - Offence under Sections 120-B, 294, 341, 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 34, IPC and Sections 3, 4 & 5 of the Prize Chits & Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 - Section 439, Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner is implicated in multiple offences including those under the IPC and the Prize Chits & Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978. The C.B.I. took up the investigation based on a direction from the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The petitioner is alleged to have diverted public funds, issued preference shares without necessary permissions, and engaged in a larger conspiracy involving bribery of government officials.
Finding of the Court:
The court found a prima facie case against the petitioner and denied bail, considering the nature of the accusations, the evidence collected, and the potential for the petitioner to flee or tamper with evidence. The court also emphasized the ongoing investigation into the 'money trail' and 'larger conspiracy' involving the petitioner and co-accused, which could be hampered by the petitioner's release.
Issues: Prima facie case, potential for fleeing or tampering with evidence, ongoing investigation into 'money trail' and 'larger conspiracy'
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the nature of the accusations, the evidence collected, and the potential impact of the petitioner's release on the ongoing investigation to determine the denial of bail.
Final Decision: The bail application was rejected, and the petitioner was directed to renew the prayer for bail after the filing of a complete charge-sheet by the C.B.I.
JUDGMENT :
C.R. Dash, J.
1. This is an application for bail under Section 439, Cr.P.C. Preliminary Charge Sheet has been filed by the C.B.I. implicating the petitioner in the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 294, 341, 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 34, IPC and Sections 3, 4 & 5 of the Prize Chits & Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978, keeping the investigation open U/S. 173 (8) Cr.P.C.
2. Coming to the genesis of the case, as found from the impugned order, the C.B.I. took up investigation in the present case pursuant to the direction given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 413 of 2013 filed by one Alok Jena.
3. Initially, Crime Branch (C.I.D.) Odisha was conducting investigation on the basis of the F.I.R. filed against the petitioner on 18.07.2012. Crime Branch (C.I.D.) arrested the petitioner on 19.06.2013 and after handing over the investigation to the C.B.I., the petitioner was handed over to the C.B.I. on 10.11.2014. Preliminary Charge Sheet against the petitioner and others was filed on 07.03.2015 and cognizance of offence, as aforesaid, has already been taken by the learned Special C.J.M. (C.B.I.), Bhubaneswar in S.P.E. No. 44 of 2014. It is further found from the record that, the C.B.I. registered case bearing R.C. No.49/5/2014 against the petitioner and others clubbing 22 different cases registered against the petitioner and others in different Police Stations of Odisha and also in Economic Offence Wing of Crime Branch (C.I.D.) Odisha.
4. Bail application of Sri Pravat Kumar Dash, who is none other than the brother of the present petitioner and Director of Seashore Group of Companies, has since been rejected by this Court on 12.08.2015 in BLAPL No. 1289 of 2015. Hon’ble Supreme Court has in the meantime also dismissed the SLP filed by said Pravat Kumar Dash against the order of refusal of bail by this Court. Bail of another co-accused Suvankar Nayak has also been rejected by this Court on 08.07.2015 in BLAPL No. 950 of 2015.
5. It is further found from the record that the present petitioner is either the Director or Managing Director of 22 Companies, which form the Seashore Group of Companies. The present petitioner is also the President/Director of all the 13 Multipurpose Cooperatives of Seashore Groups. It is also found from the records and statements of witnesses that, the present petitioner was the sole signatory in all the cheques of the companies and also all the transactions of the company. As further found from the records, the Seashore Group of Companies and Co-operatives have raised the following amounts in crores from thousands and thousands of people of Odisha, as shown in the table below:-
S. No.
Group Companies/Co-operatives
Schemes
Amounts (in crores)
1.
Seashore Funds Management Pvt. Ltd.
Deposit Agreement
12,52,93,054.94
2.
Seashore Securities Ltd.
Preference Shares
503,22,80,600.00
3.
Fixed Deposit through Multi-purpose Co-operatives of Seashore
Fixed Deposit
51,64,92,241.75
4.
Recurring Deposit through Multi-Purpose Co-operatives of Seashore
Recurring Deposit
11,17,94,686.62
5.
Savings Deposit through Multi-purpose Co-operatives of Seashore
Savings Deposit
8,61,95,079.72
6.
Daily deposit through Multi-purpose Co-operatives of Seashore
Daily deposit
13,390.00
Total
587,20,69,053.03
6. It is further found from the statement of witnesses that the present petitioner is the Managing Director of the Seashore Group of Companies. From the statement of Sri Ritish Nandan Padhi, Branch Operation Manager, HDFC Bank, Main Branch, Bhubaneswar, it is found that, out of the collected funds of the public, a sum of Rs.10,21,72,682/- (Rupees ten crores twenty-one lakhs seventy-two thousand six hundred eighty two) was diverted to five personal Account