Back
2016 Supreme(Ori) 474
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
D.P. CHOUDHURY, J.
Indu Dewan - Petitioner
Versus
Republic of India (C.B.I.) - Opposite Party
BLAPL No.1419 of 2016
Decided On : 18-08-2016
For the Petitioner: M/s. Jayant Das, A.N. Das, N. Sarkar, E.A. Das & P. Raj.
For the Opp. Party : Mr. K. C. Mishra & Mr. V. Narasingh, Mr. A.K. Bose.
Headnote:
Bail - Economic Offences - Sections 120-B, 294, 341, 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 34 of IPC read with Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 - The judgment discusses the application for bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner read with Section 437 (1) of Cr.P.C. to grant bail to her as her bail has been refused by the learned Sessions Judge, Khurda in Bail Application No.1588 of 2015. The court analyzes the principles of law on regular bail and the material on record to conclude that the petitioner, being actively involved in economic offences, does not deserve bail. The court emphasizes the seriousness of economic offences and the impact on society, and rejects the bail application.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a woman, was summoned by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in connection with a case involving economic offences under various sections of the IPC and the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. She was arrested for her alleged involvement in diversifying funds from a group of companies and siphoning off money from gullible depositors. The CBI submitted a charge sheet against her, showing a prima facie case of forgery, cheating, and conspiracy.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was a prima facie case against the petitioner for economic offences, with serious consequences for society. The court emphasized the severity of the punishment in the event of conviction and the likelihood of tampering with witnesses if bail was granted. The court concluded that, for the larger interest of the public and society, the petitioner deserved no sympathy and rejected the bail application.
Issues: The issues involved in the case revolved around the petitioner's alleged involvement in economic offences, including diversification of funds and siphoning off money from gullible depositors. The court considered the severity of the charges, the impact on society, and the likelihood of tampering with witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the principles of law on regular bail, the seriousness of economic offences, and the impact on society. The court emphasized the need to consider the effect of such offences upon society and the larger interests of the public. The court also considered the likelihood of tampering with witnesses and the severity of the punishment in the event of conviction.
Final Decision: The court rejected the bail application, concluding that the petitioner, being actively involved in economic offences, did not deserve bail. The court emphasized the seriousness of economic offences and their impact on society, and found that, for the larger interest of the public and society, the petitioner deserved no sympathy.
JUDGMENT :
D.P. Choudhury, J.
“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of change and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!”
The aforesaid quotation of Patrick Henry has been well observed in the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in (2012) 5 SCC 690; Rashmi Rekha Thatoi and another v. State of Orissa and others. Thus, the liberty is a call of the day, without which life is meaningless. At the same time sky has limit and the liberty can be also scaled out by parameters. This is an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner read with Section 437 (1) of Cr.P.C. to grant bail to her as her bail has been refused by the learned Sessions Judge, Khurda in Bail Application No.1588 of 2015.
FACTS
2. The factual matrix leading to the case of the petitioner is that she being a woman was summoned by the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter called ‘CBI’) to produce certain documents before the CBI on 12.8.2015 at Bhubaneswar in connection with S.P.E. No.42 of 2014. Petitioner appeared and furnished documents. Thereafter she was further summoned under Section 41 of Cr.P.C. to appear before the CBI. She co-operated the investigation by obeying their notices and submission of documents before the CBI for fruitful investigation. However, she also filed one anticipatory bail before this Court vide Anticipatory Bail Application No.14208 of 2015 and after hearing it was rejected vide order dated 16.10.2015.
3. It is the further case of the petitioner that on 17.10.2015 petitioner appeared before the CBI for the purpose of interrogation but she was arrested on that day for the commission of the offences under Sections 120-B, 294, 341, 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 34 of IPC read with Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. It is alleged, inter alia, that at the time of arrest the petitioner was neither informed of the reasons of arrest nor handed over a copy of the arrest memo as required by law, nor her kin was informed. She moved the bail before the Special C.J.M., CBI, at Bhubaneswar but it was rejected on 30.10.2015. Against such order the bail was moved before the learned Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar vide Bail Application No.1855 of 2015. Learned Sessions Judge was also pleased to reject the said Bail Application.
4. On the other hand, the CBI has placed the chargesheet stating therein about the role of the present petitioner in the case that M/s. Artha Tatwa Group of Companies (hereinafter called “A.T. Group of Companies”) with the false promise to gullible depositors of getting higher returns in terms of interest and incentives under various schemes floated by A.T. Group of Companies and availability of cheap flats and plots under various projects of such group of Companies. The principal accused Pradeep Kumar Sethy who is the Managing Director of A.T. Group of Companies neither returned the amount due to the depositors nor allotted any flats. Thereafter co-accused Pradeep Kumar Sethy and other Directors of the said Company closed the Companies.
5. It is the case of the Investigating Agency that coaccused Pradeep Kumar Sethy and Jyotiprakash Joyprakash formed a Company, namely, M/s. Systematix Entertainment & Media Pvt. Ltd. with the object to produce, purchase, sale, import, export and deal in cine films, tele-films etc. all over India and aboard and utilized the money of A.T. Group of Companies. On 31.12.2010 the said Company changed the said Media Company to M/s. Artha Tatwa Food Mart Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter called “A.T. Food Mart Pvt. Ltd.”) with its prime objective to carry on business of preparing, packaging, bottling and trading of food, cane food and beverages. While M/s. Systematix Entertainment & Media Pvt. Ltd. was continuing, on 27.7.2010 the said Company produced a serial “Command Force” under self finance scheme and it was proposed to Doordar
