IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that in cases involving economic offences, the nature of the allegations and the personal history of the accused are critical in determining bail, emphasizing the principle that bail should be granted unless there is a compelling reason to deny it.

ORDER

1. The Petitioner, who is a Senior Journalist having 20 years of experience in his profession and presently working as the Editor-in-Chief of an Online News Portal 'Reporters Today' and Editor-in-Chief of Odia Daily 'Mahabharat', has approached this Court by filing the present bail application challenging rejection of his bail application vide order dated 12.01.2024 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Designated Court under the OPID Act, Cuttack, arising out of Economic Offence Wing Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No.26 of 2023, corresponding to C.T. Case No.125 of 2023 for commission of offence punishable under Sections 420/467/468/471/506 of the I.P.C.

2. The prosecution case as unfurled from the F.I.R. allegation is that the Informant, namely, one Kalinga Keshari Rath has a real estate business since last 12 years. It further appears that he has various projects in and around Bhubaneswar and Puri. In connection with his real estate business, the petitioner is required to obtain various clearances/approvals from the Government/agencies/authorities for his construction work. In April, 2023, the Informant came in contact with the present Petitioner, who had come to the Informant in connection with booking of a flat through a property broker. During such conversion with the Informant, the Petitioner introduced himself as a Senior Journalist and that he is interested in booking two flats for his upcoming projects. As per the allegations made in the F.I.R., the Petitioner gave an impression that he has good rapport with highly placed Government officials and that he could easily get the official works of the Informant done. Believing the words of the Petitioner, the Informant entrusted some of his official works pertaining to environment clearance, pollution certificate and Government/Authorities approval for his future projects.

3. In course of such conversation with the Petitioner, the Informant expressed before the Informant that he is interested in launching a new T.V. channel and for such purpose, he needs funding from the Informant.

4. It has also been alleged that the Petitioner tried to intimidate the Informant by citing his connection with highly placed officers. Accordingly, the Informant paid a sum of Rs.30 lakhs in cash to the Petitioner and Rs.10 lakhs through account transfer. Out of the aforesaid Rs.10 lakhs, a sum of Rs.6.5 lakhs has been directly transferred to the account of 'Reporters Today'. From his company account a sum of Rs.3.69 lakhs have been credited to the account of two different agencies at the instance of the present Petitioner. Thereafter, the Petitioner asked the Informant to pay him a sum of Rs.60 lakhs for the purpose of paying such amount to the highly placed Government officials to get the work of the Informant done through them. It has also been alleged that the Informant being lured by the Petitioner and his words paid the aforesaid sum on different occasions with the hope that the Petitioner would get his projects approved from various agencies and authorities of the Government. It has also been alleged that the Petitioner asked the Informant to provide two luxurious cars in order to get the work done which was complied to by the Informant by providing one Mercedes and one Audi Car to the Informant.

5. While the matter stood thus, the Informant inquired about the progress of the work from the present Petitioner. However, the Petitioner was taking time by citing one plea or the other on every such occasion. It has also been alleged that at the later stage the Petitioner gave a fake BDA approval to the Informant in respect of a project for which he had taken money. On getting such approval later, the Informant became suspicious, as a result of which, he enquired from the competent authority and, as such, came to know that the approval letter is a forged document.

Immediately thereafter the Informant asked the Petitioner to return the money and two cars. However, the Petitioner did not heed to such