Point of Law: Forgery of valuable security, will - Bail rejected - Petitioner was Managing Director of company and oral as well as documentary evidence available on record prima facie indicates that he along with his wife and others have collected huge amount of deposits in a pre-planned and organized manner in name of providing developed plots to depositors and then cheated them.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. SAHOO, J.

The petitioner Prasan Kumar Patra has approached this Court for the third time seeking for bail under section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with E.O.W., Odisha, Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No.17 of 2018 corresponding to C.T. Case No.14 of 2018 pending on the file of Presiding Officer, Designated Court, O.P.I.D. Act, Cuttack for offences punishable under sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 406 read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and section 6 of the Odisha Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 2011 (hereafter ‘O.P.I.D. Act’).

2. On 30.07.2018 one Manoranjan Mishra of Kanan Vihar, Phase-II, P.S.- Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar lodged the first information report before the Superintendent of Police, E.O.W., Odisha, Bhubaneswar alleging therein that during November 2012 after going through the advertisement of M/s. Z-Infra Construction Pvt. Ltd. (hereafter ‘the company’) about availability of plots under Jatani Tahasil near IIT relatively at a lower price in the Pragyan Vihar Project, he contacted the petitioner who was the Managing Director of the company at his office located at IRC Village, Nayapalli to purchase a plot measuring an area of 2400 sq. ft. in the project. The petitioner along with his officials showed the project site to the informant and assured him to give absolute right and title of the land after conversion and making boundary wall around the plot with approachable road to the plot. They also told the informant that the total project area has been purchased by them. The cost of the plot was Rs.3,60,000/- and they charged Rs.35,000/- for conversion of the land and Rs.60,000/- for constructing boundary wall around the plot. The informant paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only) on 11.08.2012 as booking amount and obtained a receipt from the company. It is the further case of the informant that on 05.11.2012 he paid another sum of Rs.3,50,000/- (rupees three lakh fifty thousand only) and obtained a receipt whereafter the petitioner registered the land on 06.11.2012 in favour of the informant by way of a registered sale deed. The land corresponds to Mouza- Kansapada, P.S.-Jatani, Khata No.76, Plot No.154, Sub Plot Nos.441 and 442, Area-Ac.0.055 dec. out of Ac.0.730 decimals. Thereafter, the informant paid a sum of Rs.95,000/- (rupees ninety five thousand only) on different dates for conversion and boundary wall of the plot. It is the further case of the informant that though the registration of the plot was made in November 2012 but there was no approach road to the said plot and the petitioner and others of his company falsely told the informant that they have right and title over entire Pragyan Vihar Project. They had the knowledge that they were not having right, title over the area and in spite of that they had received the payment from the informant with an intention to deceive him and thus in spite of registration of the land in favour of the informant, the same served no purpose. It is stated that the petitioner and other officers of the company deceived the informant an amount of Rs.4,55,000/- on the basis of false and fabricated documents. It is stated that in spite of repeated approach by the informant to the petitioner and other officials of the company, they did not construct the boundary wall around the plot as promised even though they received the amount since last six years. It is further stated that the petitioner as the Managing Director and others have cheated about five hundred persons and misappropriated an amount of rupees twenty crores. In some cases, registration of a plot has been done but there is no approach road and in some cases, registration has not been made even though payment has been received and in some cases, a particular plot has been sold to number of persons creating problems in mutation of land. The accused persons after misappropriating the amount absconded by closing their office.

3. O