Order On Board

29.02.2024

1. This is the second bail application filed u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No.1542/2018 registered at Police Station – City Kotwali, District Raigarh (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 120B & 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 4 & 5 of the Chit Fund Act, 1982 and Section 6 & 10 of Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositor Interest Act, 2005.

2. The earlier bail application was rejected on merits vide order dated

29.08.2023 in MCRC No.4802/2023.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the applicants are the directors of the company "Calcutta Industries Limited" in which 9 other persons are also directors. Despite not having any registration with the Reserve Bank of India, contrary to the Memorandum of Article and Memorandum of Association of the company, under the guise of NBFC company, the investors were made to invest money by luring them to earn more profits in less time. Complainant Tejram Behera and his wife from Raigarh district also deposited Rs 5,00,000/- (five lakh rupees), but the company owners absconded after closing the office in the year 2015 and did not return the money to the investors. Based on the report of Tejram Behera, a crime was registered and the police investigated the matter, in which, it was found that the applicants, in the capacity of directors of the company, had invested crores of rupees from many investors of many cities and built and sold hotels, petrol pumps and houses in Kolkata, Delhi and many other cities. The police seized gold jewellery, cash, car, precious watch etc. from them and arrested the applicants on 07/04/2023 and presented challan in which after the death of a director, 8 other accused have been declared absconding.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants argues that as per the order passed by the Honorable Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s)-15584/2023 dated 15/12/2023, the applicants have deposited Rs. 46,00,000/- (Forty-six lakh rupees) in the trial Court. After presentation of the chargesheet, the trial has not started yet.

The applicants have been in jail for about 11 months. The trial is likely to take a lot of time. The trial period should not be used as a punishment. The applicants are ready to provide local surety. They are also ready to follow all the conditions if bail is granted subject to the conditions. Therefore, the applicants should be released on bail. In support of his contention, he relied upon the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Cited Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40. Further, relying upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manoranjana Sinh @ Gupta v. Central Bureau of Investigation, passed in Criminal Appeal No.240 of 2017 dated 06/02/2017, it has been argued that the personal liberty given under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution should be maintained.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent State argues that the applicants are habitual offenders. Many cases have been registered against them. Eight accused are still absconding in the case. In this situation, the applicants do not deserve to be released on bail. Therefore, the second bail application of the applicants should be rejected.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

7. The first bail application of the applicants i.e. M.Cr.C. No.4802/2023 was rejected by this Court on 29/08/2023, on the ground that the applicants had cheated many people of a huge amount. Due to their actions, the savings and livelihood of many people have been adversely affected. The co-accused are absconding. There is a possibility that the evidence & trial may be affected. Therefore, their application was not found eligible for grant of bail.

8. As per the order passed by the Honorable Supreme Court on

15/12/2023 in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s).15584/2023 “Shahjahan Khan and others Vs. Chhattisgarh Government”, out of the total