Back
2016 Supreme(Ori) 1185
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
S.K. Sahoo., J.
RABI NARAYAN SAHOO - APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA - RESPONDENT
BLAPL No. 3590 of 2016
Decided On : 31-10-2016
Mr. Devashis Panda, Advocate, for the Petitioner; Mr. Deepak Kumar, Addl. Standing Counsel, for the Opposite party
The provision under section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. is not an absolute right and must be balanced with the interests of the society, and the duty of the Magistrate to ensure expeditious trial.
Headnote:
BAIL - Indian Penal Code - 420, 467, 468, 120-B, 34 - Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner is accused of economic offences under sections 420, 467, 468, 120-B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial has been delayed, and the petitioner sought bail under section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial had been delayed due to non-attendance of witnesses and lack of expeditious steps by the prosecution. The court balanced the petitioner's right to speedy trial with the interests of the public and the state, ultimately rejecting the bail application.
Issues: Delay in trial, petitioner's right to bail under section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C., balancing individual rights with public interest.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provision under section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. is not an absolute right and must be balanced with the interests of the society. The court emphasized the duty of the Magistrate to ensure expeditious trial and considered the petitioner's right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The bail application was rejected, but the court directed the Investigating Officer to ensure the attendance of witnesses and instructed the Magistrate to conduct day-to-day trial and conclude the trial by a specified date.
JUDGMENT :
S.K. Sahoo, J. - The petitioner is an accused in Laxmisagar P.S. Case No. 45 of 2013 which corresponds to C.T. Case No. 797 of 2013 pending on the file of Smt. S.S. Mishra, J.M.F.C., Bhubaneswar for offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468 read with sections 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He has filed this application under section 439 Cr.P.C. for bail as his prayer for grant of bail was turned down by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar vide order dated 23.05.2016.
The petitioner approached this Court earlier on bail in BLAPL No. 2231 of 2015 which was allowed vide order dated 16.07.2015, inter alia, with condition that the petitioner shall furnish cash security to the tune of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty lakh) in the shape of fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the petitioner failed to comply with the terms and conditions imposed in the bail order, he could not be released from custody.
2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case as unfolded from the First Information Report lodged by one Chittaranjan Das of Satya Bihar, Palasuni, Bhubaneswar on 25.02.2013 before Inspector in charge of Laxmisagar Police Station is that as the informant was allured with false promise by the petitioner and others who are the Directors of Systematics Fund Management Limited (hereafter 'the Company'), he invested money in the Company. The Company was executing agreements with people to provide them land and flats since 2011. It is further stated that some of the Directors resigned from the Company and the rest of the Directors were not able to fulfil the promise made by the Company. Even though the invested money of the informant matured since June 2012 but the Company did not refund the maturity amount. The office of the Company was closed down and the investors were in darkness as to when they would get back their money. In spite of repeated approach by the informant to the authorities, no fruitful result came out.
On the basis of such First Information Report, Laxmisagar P.S. Case No. 45 of 2013 was registered on 25.02.2013 under sections 420/467/468/120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
During course of investigation, it came to light that Susanta Kumar Nayak as Managing Director, petitioner as Director along with other associates were running the Company at A-301, 3rd Floor, Acrux Gokul Plaza, Cuttack Road, Bomikhal. The Company was dealing with shares, mutual funds, insurance, Government securities, real estate business, gold and other bonds and working as portfolio Manager for its plants. The informant was assured by the company to be provided with a land and accordingly, he paid cash of Rs. 2,10,000/- and the company had made an agreement with the informant to provide land after the completion of maturity period. When the maturity period was over and the informant deposited the agreement before the company authorities, the company authorities neither provided him land nor refunded the money deposited by him. After some days, the Managing Director of the company, the petitioner and others absconded. Some other investors who also paid cash to the company and executed agreements were also cheated. The petitioner was arrested on 27.02.2013 in connection with another case and he confessed his guilt that he along with other Directors have cheated around 100 persons all over Odisha and he was taken on remand in this case. On 25.06.2013 charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner and others under sections 420/467/468/120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code keeping the investigation open for collection of material proof and to arrest the other accused persons.
3. Mr. Devashis Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial of the case commenced on 23.07.2013 with the framing of charge and on 16.01.2014 three prosecution witnesses were examined, one more witness was examined on 28.08.2014 and on 18.08.2015 two more witnesses
