Economic offences necessitate heightened scrutiny in bail proceedings due to their impact on public trust and financial stability.

ORDER

30.05.2025

No. 04.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The Petitioners, Directors of M/s Purple Qualves Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., have been in judicial custody since March and May, 2022 respectively, in connection with Dhenkanal Town P.S. Case No. 131 of 2022 (later re-registered as EOW P.S. Case No.10 of 2022, corresponds to C.T. Case No. 4 of 2022) for commission of offences under Sections 4 20 , 406, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B/34 IPC read with Sections 4 , 5, 6 of the PCMCS Act and Section 6 of the OPID Act .

4. The FIR was lodged by one Kamalakanta Sahoo, who along with others had invested in the company from 2018, alleging false promises of high returns, bounced cheques, and threats upon demand for repayment. A charge sheet was filed on 11.07.2022 with 33 witnesses, out of which only 5 have been examined till date, causing prolonged trial delay. Petitioners’ earlier bail pleas were rejected, and although the High Court noted slow trial progress, it directed the lower court to expedite proceedings. The Supreme Court allowed liberty to renew bail if no substantial progress occurred by January 2025. The petitioners maintain that their continued incarceration without trial for over 2 years is unjustified.

5. The Petitioners argue that the entire dispute is civil in nature arising out of investment agreements voluntarily entered into by educated individuals (engineers, doctors, Government servants), including the informant. Clause 6 of the agreement includes an indemnity clause, and Clause 1 clearly shows that the company acted as an agent, similar to mutual fund investments. Market volatility and risk were inherent and Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 30-May-2025 17:08:08 known; returns diminished only post-2020 due to adverse market conditions. It is contended that the OPID Act does not apply since the transactions involved were investments in the share market, not "deposits" as defined under Section 2(b).

6. The Petitioners have been in custody for nearly 3 years without significant progress in trial (only 5 out of 33 witnesses examined). Continued incarceration violates Article 21 of the Constitution. Citing Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb , (2021) 3 SCC 713 , S.K. Antil v. C.B.I. , (2022) 10 SCC 51., and Sanjay Chandra v. C.B.I. (2012) 1 SCC 40 . , they argue that bail should not be denied merely due to the gravity of the offence, particularly when the trial is delayed and there is no risk of flight or tampering with evidence. They also reference High Court bail orders in similar cases where allegations included forgery and misappropriation. They argue that the FIR was lodged out of frustration over market losses, and that criminal law is being misused as a recovery tool. There is no evidence of inducement or dishonest intention by the petitioners at the time of agreement, which negates the ingredients of cheating under Section 420 IPC.

7. The State opposes bail as the Petitioners are accused of serious economic offences involving public money, attracting provisions of the IPC and OPID Act . Such offences have wide social impact, and with several witnesses yet to be examined, there is a risk of tampering. Given the gravity of charges, bail should not be granted at this stage.

8. Having considered the submissions of both sides, this Court is conscious of the fact that the allegations pertain to misappropriation of funds collected from members of the public under the guise of high-return investments, thereby involving a significant element of public money and trust. In matters of