SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Ori) 220

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
S.K. SAHOO, J.
Shrikant Mohta – Petitioner
Versus
Republic of India - Opp. Party
BLAPL No. 5622 Of 2020
Decided On : 01-12-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Kapil Sibal, Senior Advocate, Mr. Milan Kanungo Senior Advocat
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Sarthak Nayak

The court emphasized that the nature of serious economic offences necessitates careful consideration of public interest over individual liberty, particularly when ongoing investigations are involved.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 420, 409, and 120-B - Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 - Bail application rejected for petitioner involved in economic offence linked to fraudulent activities of Rose Valley Group, emphasizing serious implications for public and ongoing investigation. (Paras 1-19)

(B) Standard for Bail - Criteria includes nature of accusations, potential for tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, especially in economic offences affecting public interest. (Paras 3, 10, 12)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought bail in relation to a series of fraudulent financial activities and economic crimes linked to Rose Valley Group, a company accused of deceiving investors through illegal Ponzi schemes and failing to return deposits. The court noted previous bail applications were denied due to the gravity of accusations, strong prima facie evidence, and risks posed to the investigation.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the necessity of detention in light of the serious nature of charges and ongoing investigations into connected criminal activities.

Issues: Main issues included the petitioner’s health condition, comparison with other co-accused bail grants, and possible interference with evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the petitioner's release could hinder ongoing investigations and confirmed the seriousness of the allegations, which warranted continued detention.

Result: Bail application rejected.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the case and prior bail applications. (Para 1 , 2)
2. overview of the case and charges against the petitioner. (Para 3)
3. arguments regarding the petitioner's health and circumstances. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
4. petitioner's claims regarding innocence and misuse of legal procedures. (Para 8 , 9)
5. court’s analysis of the economic offense and public interest. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
6. discussion on the procedural aspects and the role of the judicial system. (Para 16 , 17 , 18)
7. final ruling on the bail application and considerations for rejection. (Para 19)

ORDER :

S. K. SAHOO, J.

1.This is the third successive bail application of the petitioner Shrikant Mohta before this Court. The first bail application in BLAPL No.1983 of 2019 was rejected on 13.05.2019 and the second one in BLAPL No.5450 of 2019 was rejected on 02.01.2020. The petitioner approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the rejection order dated 02.01.2020 by preferring petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.839 of 2020 which was also dismissed on 10.02.2020. After the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition, the petitioner without preferring any application for bail before the learned trial Court, has approached this Court directly and filed the present bail application on 17.08.2020.

The petitioner is an accused in R.C. Case No. 39/S/2014-Kol corresponding to SPE Case No. 34 of 2014 pending on the file of Special C.J.M. (C.B.I.), Bhubaneswar for commission of offences punishable under sections 420, 409 read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 (hereafter ‘1978 Act’).

2. The present case was instituted by clubbing three first information reports of three different cases i.e. Buguda P.S. Case No.75 of 2013, Jeypore Town P.S. Case No.71 of 2013 and Nuapada P.S. Case No.82 of 2013 in pursuance of the order dated 09.05.2014 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India passed in W.P. (Civil) No.401 of 2013 filed by Shri Subrata Chattoraj and W.P. (Civil) No.413 of 2013 filed by Shri Alok Jena.

The factual matrix of the prosecution case is that Rose Valley Group of Companies (hereafter for short ‘Rose Valley’) collected huge amount of money from public enticing them with false promise of paying higher rates of interest although Rose Valley was not having any authorization from the Reserve Bank of India (hereafter for short ‘RBI’) or the Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereafter for short ‘SEBI’) for carrying out such activities and therefore, the company cheated the public.

Investigation revealed that ‘Rose Valley Resorts and Plantations Limited, Kolkata’ was founded in the year 1997 and in the year 2002, SEBI imposed ban on the teak based investment schemes which the company was carrying out, for which the schemes floated were stopped. The company was renamed as ‘Rose Valley Hotel and Entertainment Limited’ in the year 1999. Two more companies in the name of ‘Rose Valley Real Estates Constructions Limited’ and ‘Real Estate and Landbank India Ltd.’ were founded subsequently in the year 1999 and 2001 which were registered with the Registrar of Companies (hereafter for short ‘ROC’). Rose Valley started expanding its spheres and a lot of new companies were formed in between 1997 to 2012. The accused persons, namely Gautam Kundu, Chairman of Rose Valley, Shibamoy Dutta, Managing Director, Ashok Kumar Saha and Ram Lal Goswami, Directors of Rose Valley in furtherance of criminal conspiracy by establishing branches of the companies in different parts of India, collected money from the public through multi-level agent network system. They cheated the investors/depositors by way of camouflaged schemes and false assurance about legal sanctity and false promise of higher rates of interest. The accused persons also cheated the depositors as well as the agents by making false assurance that the accused companies were legally empowered to collect

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top