The court held that bail should not be granted in serious economic offences, especially when the accused has a history of non-disclosure and the case involves significant public financial loss.

JUDGMENT:

G. Satapathy, J.

1. This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with SPE Case No.34 of 2014 corresponding to TR Case No.4 of 2017 (CBI/SCB/SIT/Kolkata Case No.RC.39(S) of 2014) pending in the file of learned Additional Special Judge (CBI-1), Bhubaneswar, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.420/408/409/120-B/34 of IPC r/w Sections 4 /5/6 of Prize Chits & Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 (in short, “the Act”).

2. The brief facts and allegation against the petitioner in precise are that on the report of affected investors, initially three cases were registered against the Rose Valley Hotels and Entertainments Ltd. arraying its Managing Directors & two other employees vide Buguda PS Case No.75 of 2013 U/Ss.420/34 of IPC and Sections 4 /5/6 of the Act; Nuapada PS Case No.82 of 2013 U/Ss.420/120-B of IPC and Sections 4 /5/6 of the Act and Jeypore Town PS Case No.71 of 2013 U/Ss.408/409/420 of IPC and Sections 4 /5/6 of the Act, but basing on the direction of the Apex Court passed in W.P.(C) No.401 of 2013, 44 cases were registered by the CBI/SCB/SIT/Kolkata in respect of different companies collecting money from the public in Odisha and, accordingly, the CBI took up the investigation consolidating the aforesaid three PS Cases in Odisha by registering a case vide RC.39(S)/2014-Kol on 05.06.2014 for commission of offences U/Ss.420/ 408/409/ 120-B/ 34 of IPC and Sections 4 /5/6 of the Act. The allegation against the petitioner is that he being the Chairman of Rose Valley Group of Companies had collected huge sum of money to the tune of around Rs.17,378 Crores from the general public and gullible investors falsely assuring them of high returns, but such collection of investment was without any authorization either from RBI or SEBI and later on, he did not fulfill the assurance given to the investors by refunding their dues invested in camouflage schemes. It is also alleged that the petitioner and his Group of Company had taken investment from around Rs.32 Lakhs depositors, but later duped them by not paying their dues.

3. Heard, Mr. Rajeev Lochan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sarthak Nayak, learned counsel for the CBI and perused the record.

3.1. The main thrust of argument for the petitioner are that bail is the rule, but jail is the exception; long custody of the petitioner awaiting trial; suffering of the petitioner from critical illness; no offence U/S.409 of IPC is made out against the petitioner and the petitioner has already undergone the maximum sentence for the rest of the offences; trial would take considerable time as there are 400 witnesses required to be examined in this case; and last but not the least, the value of the property of the petitioner attached exceeds his liability and, thereby, the investors can be compensated by selling out the property attached, in case the petitioner is found convicted.

3.2. In reply, it is advanced for the CBI that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and he has suppressed many things and the delay is only attributable to the petitioner and the plea for bail of the petitioner has been turned down by the Apex Court in limine and the petitioner has got an outstanding amount of Rs.9,000 Crores to be refunded to the investors and the petitioner has got a long checkered history of criminal cases of similar nature, so also he poses flight risk and all the principal accused are still in custody.

4. After having conside