The court considered the principle of double jeopardy in granting bail to the petitioner despite the serious nature of the economic offences alleged against him.

JUDGMENT :

J.P. Das, J. - This common order shall dispose of the mentioned three bail applications arising out of three cases vide G. R. Case No. 306 of 2013 corresponding to Semiliguda P.S. Case No. 32 of 2013, G.R. Case No. 324 of 2013 corresponding to Koraput Town P. S. Case No. 49 of 2013 and G. R. Case No. 369 of 2013 corresponding to Jeypore Town P. S. Case No. 99(16) of 2013 all registered under Sections 406/420/467/468/471/506/120-B, IPC and Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 against the present petitioner along with others as accused in all the three cases pending on the file of learned C.J.M., Jeypore.

2. Three separate cases were registered at Semiliguds Police Station, Koraput Town Police Station and Jeypore Town Police Station on three F.I.Rs. lodged by separate informants alleging that the Sea-Shore Group of Companies of which the present petitioner was the Managing Director through its sister concerns having its Branch Offices in the district of Koraput, collected money from different persons with assurance of high return within short span of time, but, subsequently the investors found out that they have been cheated. The Firms were Seamanchal Multi-purpose Co-operative Society Limited at Koraput Town Sea-Shore Group of Companies at Semiliguda and Sea-shore Securities Limited at Jeypore Town, which through different public meetings promoted the affairs of the Company and invited and accepted the deposits from general public as alleged. In G. R. Case No. 306 of 2013 the petitioner was arrested on 19.06.2013 and in other two cases he was remanded to custody on 24.06.2013 and 16.09.2013.

3. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that for the self-same allegations the petitioner has been implicated as accused in three cases besides the fact that he is in custody in a case being investigated into by the CBI in R. C. No. 49/S/2014-SCB/KOL pending on the file of learned CBI Court Bhubaneswar for the same allegation of offences. It was submitted that the implication and trial of the accused in the aforesaid three cases is nothing but double jeopardy caused to the petitioner since the allegations in all the cases are not only similar but also same as in the case investigated into by the CBI. It may be mentioned here that since allegations of cropping up of different Chit Fund Companies cheating the gullible poor investors came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in a Public Interest Litigation, direction was issued in I. A. No. 20 in W. P. (Civil) No 401 of 2013 by the Hon'ble Apex Court to take up the investigation by the CBI against forty four Chit Fund Companies out of which the Sea-shore Group of Companies was one. Pursuant thereto, a number of cases registered at different Police Stations in which the investigation was taken up as well as completed were taken over by the CBI and the matters are being still investigated into awaiting submission of that charge-sheet albeit preliminary charge-sheet has been submitted. Considering the circumstances, learned counsel for the CBI was asked for a report as to whether the present three cases have been taken over by the CBI for investigation. A written reply was submitted mentioning therein that although Sea-shore Group of Companies, Sea-Shore Securities Limited and Seamanchal Multipurpose Co-operative Society Limited as involved in the aforesaid three cases are included within the CBI investigation still the specific three cases at different police stations of Koraput district have not been taken up by the CBI for investigation. It is not disputed that the nature of allegations are self-same in all the cases. In the present three cases, charge-sheet has already been submitted since 2013. It was also submitted that the petitioner is still in custody in relation to the case investigated into by the CBI.

4. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the State that in view of the serious nature o