Page 1 of 4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

BLAPL No.6718 OF 2021

Jagannath Das

….

Petitioner

Mr.S.D. Das, Sr. Advocate

-versus-

State of Odisha

….

Opposite Party

Mr.G.N.Rout, ASC

Mr.P.K. Nayak, Advocate for the Victim

CORAM:

MR. JUSTICE D.DASH

Order No.

Order

06.

19.05.2022

1.

The matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement

(virtual/ physical) mode.

2.

This is the successive journey of the Petitioner, who is in

custody in connection with EOW Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No.14

of 2018 corresponding to C.T. Case No.2408 of 2018 on the file of

learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar running for alleged commission of

offence under section 120-B/406/420/467/468/471 of the IPC, in

filing this application under section 439 Cr.P.C., for his release on

bail.

3.

The prosecution allegations run to the effect that the

Company, namely, Swarnayug Human Resources Limtied (SHRL)

having a unit as Skills of Computer System Institute (SCSI) with a

view to provide free training programme in the skill developments

for residential and non-residential students in computer, soft skill

training, tailoring and multi-media courses, through advertisement,

invited for the franchise.

This Petitioner is said to be one of the Directors of the said

SHRL. The Informant states to have been moved by the

// 2 //

Page 2 of 4

advertisement, finally entered into a MOU/agreement for giving

training to 432 students by depositing the assessment fee and

security amount. It is next alleged that the legal dues of the

Informant, as assured, was not paid and the post dated cheques

were dishonoured.

Mr.S.D.Das, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner

submits that although it is said that huge sum of money have been

collected while carrying out the activities of the Company, in the

account of the Petitioner, only a sum of Rs.46,00,000/- (forty-six

lakhs) has been deposited. He further submits that with the self-

same allegation, in the case registered in the State of Chhatisgarh,

the Petitioner has already been granted bail on 13.01.2020 by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.78 of 2020 and

also such order of grant of bail has been passed in a case of similar

nature by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur in B.A.

No.39 of 2020. He further submits that the Petitioner, having been

granted with interim bail on two occasions, has surrendered in

time is in custody when it is also not stated that the Petitioner had

misutilized the liberty in any manner during the period. With all

these above, placing the fact that the Petitioner has been in custody

in this case since 23.11.2018, he submits that in the facts and

circumstances of the case, when the evidence projected by the

prosecution through number of witnesses are to be placed in the

trial for being put to test which is not at all expected to be

completed so soon, further detention of the Petitioner in custody

does stand as of necessity to serve any useful purpose except that

it would cause sufferance to the Petitioner and his family

members. In view of all these above, he urges for reconsideration

// 3 //

Page 3 of 4

of the prayer for grant of bail to the Petitioner as according to him,

further detention of the Petitioner in custody would not be in the

interest of justice, especially when there remains no scope on the

part of the Petitioner to flee from justice and tamper the evidence.

Learned counsel for the State and Victim oppose the

move. According to them, there is no material to show that the

Petitioner has paid back any amount to the persons in the State of

Odisha from whom collections have been made. They submit that

the case against the Petitioner here is for commission of economic

offence and it is of wide magnitude having the involvement of

more than Rs.21.00 crores. They, howev