G. Satapathy, J.

1. This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with CBI/EOB/Kolkata Case No.RC-30/S/2014 corresponding to TR Case No.03 of 2023 arising out of SPE No.25 of 2014 pending in the file of learned Special Judge (CBI-I), Bhubaneswar for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.120(B)/420/409 & 34 of IPC r/w Sec.4/5 & 6 of Prize Chits Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978.

2. The allegation involved in this case arises out of an FIR being lodged by ASI of Police, Baliapal PS under Baliapal PS Case No. 82 dated 14.05.2023 against the company “M/s. Infinity Realcon Limited”, Baliapal (in short, “IRL) and its CMD namely Pranab Mukherjee and Directors-Sarbari Mukherjee, Prabir Mukherjee(petitioner), Soumen Mallick and Branch Manager, Baliapal Branch, Ganesh Kar and it is alleged therein that the company without having any statutory authorization was illegally collecting public deposits through its officials by alluring the innocent depositors with promise of high returns, but subsequently on the intervention of Apex Court, the CBI took up the investigation and in the course of such investigation, it was unearthed that the Directors of M/s.IRL through illegal investment schemes had collected a substantial sum of Rs.565 crores during 2009-10 to 2013-14, out of which an amount of Rs.343 crores have not been returned to the investors. Accordingly, the CBI submitted first supplementary charge sheet on 30.12.2016 against the CMD Pranab Mukherjee and Directors Prabir Mukherjee(petitioner), Soumen Mallick & M/s. IRL for commission of offences punishable U/Ss. 120-B/420/409 of IPC & Sec.4, 5 & 6 of the Prize Cheat & Money Circulation Schemes (Banning Act), 1978 (in short, “the Act”) keeping the investigation open U/S. 173(8) of CrPC, however, finding the complicity of the present petitioner, he was taken into custody being arrested on 14.09.2016, but the petitioner is in custody since then.

3. Heard, Ms. Agnisikha Ray, learned proxy counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Prasanta Kumar Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sarthak Nayak, learned counsel appearing virtually for CBI in the matter and perused the record. Mr. Sarthak Nayak, vehemently opposes the bail application of the petitioner by contending inter alia that the petitioner being the principal accused cannot be equated with the co-accused released on bail inasmuch as those accused who have been granted bail have no direct role, rather they had assisted the principal accused for committing the crime.

4. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, it is undisputed that the petitioner is in custody since 14.09.2016, but in the meantime, final charge-sheet has already been submitted, however, the trial is yet to commence and the case right now stands posted for appearance of the accused persons as confirmed by Mr. Sarthak Nayak. It is, however, not disputed that co-accused Debabrata Sinha in BLAPL No.4813 of 2025 has already been granted bail, but co- accused Lakshman Srinivasan has already been admitted to bail by the order of the Apex Court passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.9318 of 2023 and co-accused Pranaba Mukherjee, the CMD has already been admitted to bail by an order passed by the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.15686 of 2024. Additionally, it is found that there are 163 witnesses who are yet to be examined in this case and, therefore, the trial would definitely take some time and the case also involves for consideration of voluminous documentary evidence. It is, however, true that the allegations of the prosecution against the petitioner is serious, but whatever may be the allegation, it is only the allegation and it would never substitute for proof. Right to speedy trial is the fundamental right of an accused, but State has failed to ensure such speedy trial for the petitioner in this case. In view of the above facts and taking into