The main legal point established is the consideration of the petitioner's limited role, conduct, and efforts in granting bail, emphasizing the need for a fair trial.

JUDGMENT

S K Panigrahi, J. - The present application is preferred under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 in connection with EOW Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No.28 of 2018 corresponding to C.T. Case No.20 of 2018, pending before the court of the learned Presiding Officer, Designated Court under the O.P.I.D. Act, Cuttack, Odisha.

2. The succinct facts of the case are that one Debadatta Routray lodged an FIR before the EOW Police Station, Bhubaneswar vide P.S. Case No.28/18 alleging that he had booked a studio apartment at Shreekhetra Kalinga Kutira, Puri Project floated by M/s. Shreya Infrastructure Services Ltd. by paying 5,71,000/- out of total consideration amount of 9,50,000/- to its M.D., namely, Mr. Himanshu Shekhar Nayak. An agreement to that effect had been executed between the parties. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, M/s. Shreya Infrastructure Services Ltd. was liable to handover possession of flat by the end of March, 2017, but much to the chagrin of the complainant neither the flat was provided nor was the money refunded to the informant. It has also been alleged by the informant that a large number of other depositors had also been duped by the said Himanshu Shekar Nayak and his Company. The accused Himanshu Sekhar Nayak and his Company have also been alleged to have allotted the same flats to multiple customers with an ulterior motive to cheat and have thereafter absconded from their Saheed Nagar Office. In the said FIR, it has been alleged that other accused Rama Chandra Patra was the land owner who had given his land on sharing basis to M/s. Shreya Infrastructure Services Ltd. and both the accused persons have connived with each other and duped the informant.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid information, a case was registered under Sections 420(A), 406, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC read with Section 6 of the Odisha Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 2011 and the I.O. commenced his investigation.

4. Records of the case portray that during investigation, it was found out that the accused Rama Chandra Patra had given his land for development on sharing basis to the accused Company by means of executing a deed of General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favour of the said Himanshu Sekhar Nayak. After the project commenced, flats were booked and construction works were executed to a substantial extent. In the meantime, accused Rama Chandra Patra, for some reasons, cancelled the deed of GPA giving rise to several litigations. It was further discovered that since a competent civil court passed an order of status quo over the land in controversy, further construction was stalled which caused delay in providing flats to the prospective purchasers. The present accused petitioner functioned as the Director of the Company from 03.09.2014 to 08.07.2016 during which period he had entered into an agreement with some customers on behalf of the Company. The petitioner was arrested on 03.02.2019 and has remained in custody since then after the rejection of his application for bail by the learned Trial Court on 28.02.2019.

5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner Shri Ashwini Kumar Das has submitted that prima facie no case is made out against the petitioner. The petitioner had been the Director of the Company for only two years and had tendered his resignation from his Directorship in the year 2016 much prior to the Company conducting its business with the land owner or entering into agreement with the prospective buyers. The Petitioner had been promoted from being an employee to the post of the Director and has never conducted any financial transaction on behalf of the Company nor was there any kind money trail connecting him with the deposits made by some buyers. Even the salary of the petitioner has remained unpaid and there are numerous communications to that effect between the MD of the Company and the petitioner. It has further been submitted that the I.O. has seized all the B