The court granted bail considering the petitioner's prolonged custody, lack of further need for custodial interrogation, and health issues while emphasizing strict conditions due to the nature of the economic offense.

ORDER :

R.K. Pattanaik, J.

1. This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner for release on bail in connection with C.T. Case No.3(C) of 2019 arising out of EOW P.S. Case No.16 of 2019 registered under Sections 420 , 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC read with Section 6 of the OPID ACT , 2011 pending in the court of learned Presiding Officer, Designated Court ( OPID ACT ), Balasore on the grounds inter alia that he is in custody since 25th July, 2021 and no further custodial interrogation is necessary.

2. An FIR was lodged on 30^th August, 2019 alleging therein that M/s Mass Infra Realty Limited, a company registered under the Company Act, 1956 which was later on converted to a Cooperative Society and the petitioner being its Chairman-cum- Managing Director along with other office bearers issued non- convertible redeemable debentures and certificates by alluring them of providing high rate of interest on the deposits received under different schemes. Furthermore, the informant alleged that he himself deposited amounts during the period between 2012 to 2014 and had also made recurring deposits with the Cooperative Society but then, before the date of its maturity, the company closed its offices in the State and thus, cheated him and many others and in the process duped the depositors after having collected the money without any authority of the RBI or SEBI, whereafter, EOW P.S. Case No.16 of 2019 was registered.

3. Heard Mr. M. Kanungo, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. B. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the OPID.

4. It is contended by Mr. Kanungo that the petitioner was initially appointed as an Additional Director in the year 2010 and thereafter, as the Director of the company with effect from 29^th December, 2011 and but resigned from that post on 30^th November, 2013 and application in Form-32 under the Company Act, 1956 was filed before the competent authority and since then, he ceased to be holding any position as an office bearer of the company and as per the Board Directors’ resolution, he has no authority or power to do engage himself in any activities on behalf of the company and as to the Cooperative Society, he was selected as its President on 24^th May, 2013 but subsequently, new office bearers took over charge of the society on 25th February, 2016 with due intimation to the Central Cooperative Society, Department of Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India. It is further contended that the accused is in judicial custody from 25^th July, 2021 and since then, he is extending cooperation in the investigation and as the charge sheet has already been filed in the month of November, 2021 and having regard to the fact that custodial interrogation is no more required and by being in detention, he has been adequately penalized, the petitioner should be enlarged on bail with any conditions as may be directed by the Court in the facts and circumstances of the case. Lastly, Mr. Kanungo contends that the petitioner should be granted bail notwithstanding the fact that he was denied earlier by the Court’s order dated 22^nd December, 2021 in BLAPL No.8017 of 2020, since no purpose would really be served by his further detention. While pleading so, Mr. Kanungo cited a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vrs. CBI AIR 2012 SC 830 , wherein, the objective of bail has been held neither as punitive nor preventive.

5. On the contrary, Mr. Bhuyan submits that the petitioner was a Director of the alleged company and he along with other officials of the said company managed to collect an amount of Rs.2.71 crore and as a result, duped 319 investors which has so far been revealed from the inve