JUDGMENT :

D.P. CHOUDHURY, J.

This is an application under section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with C.T. Case No. 03 of 2015 arising out of E.O.W., Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No.02 of 2015 pending in the court of learned 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Designated Court, Cuttack for the alleged offence punishable under sections 420/467/468/471/406/120-B of Indian Penal Code read with Sections 4, 5 and 6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 and Section 6 of the Odisha Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 2011.

2. The factual matrix leading to the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was the Director of M/s. Land India Real Estate Private Limited and M/s. Land India Assets Limited. It is alleged inter alia that the present petitioner, being Director of the said Companies along with other co-accused persons, induced the general public to make deposits in different scheme of the Companies so that the amount involved would be doubled. Pursuant to the assurance, gullible depositors deposited different amount of money with the hope of receiving double the amount of interest.

3. It is the further case of the prosecution that general public have deposited an amount of Rs.5,69,45,602.00 in M/s. Land India Real Estate Private Limited and Rs.2,81,89,900.00 in M/s. Land India Assets Limited. Although such amount have been collected, but the depositors did not get back their money as assured. When they went to the office of the aforesaid Companies, they found that the same have been closed. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted keeping further investigation open.

4. Mr. S.S. Ray, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was only the Public Relation Officer in M/s. Land India Real Estate Private Limited from 24.07.2012 to 20.01.2014 and only an employee of the above Company M/s. Land India Real Estate Private Limited. The principal accused Braja Sundar Mishra was actually engaged in pursuing the investors to deposit money in their Companies. According to him, the present petitioner was only an employee and receiving salary of Rs.30,000.00 per month. He further submitted that although there is allegation that Rs.8,51,35,502.00 has been deposited but actually in charge sheet the Investigating Officer has disclosed about deposit of Rs.1,30,32,600.00 in the Company by the depositors. He further submitted that charge sheet has been submitted and out of 54 charge sheeted witnesses, three have already been examined. Petitioner being local person, there is no chance of absconding and tampering prosecution witnesses. So, he submitted to take a lenient view to release the petitioner on bail with any condition as deemed just and proper.

5. Mr.Tripathy, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State submitted that the bail of accused Managing Director namely, Braja Sundar Mishra has already been rejected by this Court basing on the fact that the accused persons including the accused Managing Director Braja Sundar Mishra and the present petitioner being the Director have allured to deposit good amount of money in their Companies with the assurance to return the same with interest doubling the amount of the principal deposit and the gullible depositors being motivated by the present petitioner along with other accused persons, deposited amount in their Companies. Later the innocent depositors did not get back their money and finally found that the office of the Companies has been closed. He submitted that the present petitioner being the Director along with accused Managing Director Braja Sundar Mishra and other accused persons without returning money and without informing the depositors closed the office. He further submitted that if the petitioner is released on bail, there is every possibility of tampering with the prosecution witnesses as the further investigation is left op