Bail cannot be granted when there is substantial evidence of fraud, a significant flight risk, and a history of similar offenses by the petitioner.

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 EOW Bhubaneswar PS Case No.7 of 2024 corresponding to CT Case No.17 of 2024 pending in the file of learned Presiding Officer, Designated Court under OPID ACT , Cuttack, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.406/ 420/ 467/468/ 471/ 120-B of IPC r/w Section 6 of OPID ACT .

2. The facts given rise to this bail application are that the petitioner-Saiyad Jiyahjur Rahaman being the CEO of M/s. LFS Broking Pvt. Ltd., a partner of MOL Group, Kolkata has floated different schemes and allured investors to invest money on the guarantee of high returns and it is alleged that during June, 2022, LFS Broking & PMS Service and its sister concerns namely LFS Broking Pvt. Ltd. enters into share market trading and gold business and allured the investors by floating an advertisement of various lucrative schemes including 2% monthly interest on the investment of minimum Rs.25,000/- till the final withdrawal of the invested amount. Accordingly, the informant namely Arun Kumar Pattanayak invested Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five Thousand) on 25.06.2022 with LFS Broking & PMS Service and got Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) every month which is equivalent to 2% on the invested amount and being encouraged, the informant further invested Rs.6.75 Lakhs and received Rs.14,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Thousand) on 23.06.2023 as return for one month only and after which, he did not receive anymore. In the process, the aforesaid Companies had secured investment for near about Rs.9,55,52,138/- (Rupees Nine Crores Fifty-five Lakhs Fifty- two Thousand One Hundred Thirty-eight) from 124 numbers of investors by paying the investors the promised returns and interests for three months or even for one month and after collecting such a huge amount from the general public, the Companies stopped making any further payment. In the course of investigation, the involvement of the petitioner prima facie being found, he was taken into custody by Economic Offence Wing (EOW). The petitioner being unsuccessful in approaching the Presiding Officer, Designated Court under OPID ACT , Cuttack is before this Court in this bail application.

3. In the course of hearing, Mr. D. Nayak, learned Senior Counsel, who is being assisted by Mr. Manish Dhir, learned counsel for the petitioner very emphatically submits that even if the materials collected in the course of investigation are taken into consideration, the petitioner having not completely cheated anybody has paid some amount and he has got intention to clear up the investment of all the investors, but how long a person can be detained in custody pending trial, when he is ready to return the investment with some breathing time and although the petitioner has been found involved in some cases in different States, but he having been granted bail in most of the cases, his detention in this case would not serve any fruitful purpose. It is further submitted by Mr. Nayak that the petitioner is in custody for last one year and in the meantime, charge-sheet has already been submitted, but the allegation against the petitioner is for misappropriation for a sum of Rs.9,55,52,138/- (Rupees Nine Crores Fifty-five Lakhs Fifty-two Thousand One Hundred Thirty-eight), however, the pre trial detention of the petitioner amounts to his punishment before trial and, therefore, the principle being, no person shall be made to suffer sentence until proven guilty at the trial, the petitioner may kindly be granted bail. It is, however, submitted by Mr. Nayak that all the evidence relating to this case being documentary in nature, which has been seized and the petitioner having no capacity to tamper the prosecution materials