The judgment established the fundamental right to speedy trial as a part of the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. It also emphasized the principles of bail, including the presumption of innocence, the importance of participation in investigations, and the need to balance the right to liberty with the interest of society.

ORDER

1. Both the matters are taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

BLAPL No.2023 of 2020

3. The Petitioner being in custody in connection with Sahadevkhunta Police Station Case No.144 of 2013 corresponding to C.T. Case No.1041 of 2013 pending before the court of learned S.D.J.M., Balasore registered for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 420, 406, 409 and 34 of the I.P.C. read with Sections 4 and 5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, has filed this petition under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for his release on bail.

4.The prosecution story, in brief, is that the informant and others had invested their hard earned money in the Artha Tatwa Group of Company under different schemes. Thereafter, the office of the finance company was closed and vanished from the locality due to which they are unable to get back their deposits for the last 10 months. Having found no other alternative, the informant and others went to the head office in Bhubaneshwar, but the said Head office was also closed. It has also been alleged therein that the petitioner along with other Directors assaulted them by engaging local hooligans. With no other options left, the informant and others decided to lodge the written report at the police station. BLAPL No.1830 of 2021

5. The Petitioner being in custody in connection with Chatrapur Police Station Case No.68 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. Case No.135 of 2013 pending before the court of learned S.D.J.M., Chatrapur registered for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 120B, 420, 468, 471 and 34 of the I.P.C. read with Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, has filed this petition under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for his release on bail.

6. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 01.12.2010, the informant deposited a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in the local branch of the company, but the local branch did not refund the deposited amount to him. As a result, the informant lodged the FIR at the police station against the Petitioner who is the Managing Director of Artha Tatwa Group.

7. Considering both the BLAPLs share the similar cause of action and facts pertaining to the Petitioner, both the cases have been clubbed together and heard analogously.

8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that on being authorized under the law, the Artha Tatwa being a Co-operative Bank opened its branch in different parts of Odisha and collected money from people on different schemes and also sanctioned loans and advances to public. However, when cases started getting registered against the company for the alleged failure to refund their money, the investigating agency started freezing and seizing different accounts of the Company without considering its authority to accept deposit from the investors. He further submitted that different assets of the Company which has already been seized by different investigating agencies are sufficient to meet the payment liability of the depositors. Moreover, since the company is registered and governed by a statute, if the investors fail to get back their money, the remedy lies in the Act i.e. Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002. Furthermore, there is a process of liquidation in the said Act which enables the official liquidator appointed by the Government to take over the assets of the company and by disposing of these assets, the shareholders and depositors can get their lost money back. In that circumstance, no criminal case should have been registered against the company and its Directors and Members of Management.

9. Additionally, he submitted that though the charge sheet has been submitted since 13.09.2013, however, till date the trial has not yet been commenced and the Petitioner is unnecessarily languishing in custody from the date of remand. In the meantime, as per the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court,