Bail should not be granted in cases of serious allegations unless the dispute is primarily commercial; the misuse of criminal law for debt recovery is impermissible.

ORDER :

A.K. MOHAPATRA, J.

1. Challenging the order dated 25.07.2024 passed in BLAPL No.1384 of 2024 by the Special Judge (CBI), Court No.II-cum- Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar, whereby the bail application of the Petitioner was rejected, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present bail application.

2. The FIR story, in brief, is that one Soumitra Pattnaik submitted a written complaint on 26.09.2022 before the Khandagiri Police Station inter alia alleging that the Petitioner and his wife met him personally at the CESU Office, Baramunda in August, 2016 and became friends with him. In the year 2017 the Petitioner encouraged the complainant to invest money in his company, namely, ‘Krish Indigenous Technical Equipment Pvt. Ltd.’ and in return the complainant was assured that he will be made a Director of the company. He was further assured 33% of the profit along with one-third of the shares of the company. It is further alleged that the complaint accepted the said offer and paid a sum of Rs.85,00,000/- to the Petitioner. In the year 2018 a dispute arose between the Petitioner and the complainant. The complainant demanded his money back from the Petitioner. Since, the Petitioner did not return the money, the complainant lodged the present FIR before the Khandagiri Police Station, which was registered as P.S. Case No.491 of 2022 under Sections 420 , 506 read with Section 34 of IPC . In course of the investigation, the Petitioner was arrested and taken into custody w.e.f. 02.07.2024 and since then the Petitioner is languishing in jail custody.

3. Heard Mr. Subir Palit, learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as Mr. M.K. Chand, learned counsel appearing for the Informant and learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Party. Perused the case diary and other materials on record.

4. Mr. Subir Palit, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, at the outset, submitted that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR by the complainant. He further contended that although the occurrence is of the year 2017-18, the FIR was registered only in the year 2022. Further, referring to the Income Tax Assessment Order dated 15.03.2023, learned senior counsel for the Petitioner contended that it is evident from record that an amount of Rs.40,52,000/- was paid by the complainant to the Petitioner through his bank account. He further asserted that the complainant has failed miserably to establish the payment of the balance amount to the Petitioner as has been alleged in the FIR. He further submitted that the Petitioner has repaid an amount of Rs.31,05,000/- to the complainant during the financial year 2017-18.

5. In course of his argument, learned senior counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the complainant was removed from the post of Director of the company, as a result of his misconduct in handling the company’s affairs. He further submitted that the Petitioner has paid back a sum of Rs.31,05,000/- out of a total amount of Rs.40,52,000/- paid by the complainant. Further, referring to the ingredients of the offence under Section 420 of IPC , learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that no case is made out against the present Petitioner under the alleged Section. He further argued that the dispute between the parties is purely commercial in nature and the same is primarily a business dispute. The complainant, however, is trying to convert a commercial dispute into a criminal case by lodging the present FIR making false allegations against the present Petitioner. In fact, learned senior counsel for th