Judgment · High Court · 2012

#7. One Shri Upen Mohan, the Investigating Officer of CID P.S Case N o. 14 of 2011, filed an affidavit on 24-02-2011. In the said affidavit, the I. O stated that the petitioner was absconding and evading police arrest since 05-0 3-2011. He has further stated that the petitioner after obtaining the interim ba il from this Court, appeared before him on 02-02-2012 and 03-02-2012. In paragra ph-6 of the said affidavit, he has stated that (cid:28)the accused did not co-operate w ith the investigation of the case and his appearance before the I.O on both the days were a mere formality (cid:29). The I.O also submitted in a sealed cover before the Court a list of pending cases against the petitioner collected and known to the CID.

#8. Two affidavits were filed on 21-02-2012 and 24-2-2012 by the f ather of the petitioner, Dr. Promod Chandra Barman in the present case . In the affidavit dated 21-02-2012, he stated that in connection with CID P.S case No. 1 4 of 2011, the petitioner appeared before the I.O and he was interrogated on 02- 02-2012 and 03-02-2012. After his interrogation by the CID, he was arrested by t he BIEO in connection with BIEO P.S Case No. 35 of 2010 on 04-02-2012. In connec tion with the aforesaid case, after police custody of 12 days, the petitioner is presently in judicial custody.

#9. No. 35 of 2010 has been annexed. The said FIR reads as under: In the affidavit dated 24-02-2012, the FIR in the BIEO P.S Case (cid:28)To, The Officer in Charge, B.I(E.O) Police Station, Assam Srimantapur Guwahati. Sub: FIR Sir, I am to inform you that Unipay 2U is a Non-Banking Financial Company hav ing its two offices in Guwahati one at Chandmari and the other at Christian Bast i, Guwahati. The NBFC’s cannot accept demand deposits without having proper regi stration from Reserve Bank of India. But Unipay 2U Company indulging public to d eposit money and offers incredible return on the deposited amount where the comp any is a part of payment and settlement system and hence cannot issue cheques. T his company is carrying its business under the guise of providing gold and goods illegally. This company introduces pyramid structure money circulation scheme a nd indulges public to deposit money for quick and easy returns. The company has its head office at Malayasia and other main office at Bangalore. In Guwahati Sri Pranab Jyoti Barman is running Unipay 2U office at Chandmari and Sri Kesab Kant i Sarma at Christian Basti. It is suspected that this company will close its off ices in Guwahati soon after collecting huge amount of money from public. The Com pany is not entitled to indulge public to deposit money or make any settlement w ithout having a valid certificate of registration of Reserve Bank of India. Therefore, I request you kindly to register a case against the office be arers of the company under proper section of law. Yours faithfully Sd/- Upen Chetry Dy. S.P. B.I (E.O) Assam, Guwahati 9/12/10 (cid:29) The said case has been registered under Section 120(B)/420 IPC read with Section 4/5/6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978.

#10. Heard Mr. N. Dutta, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Z. Kamar, learned P.P, Assam, who has produced the case diary.

#11. Mr. Dutta, learned Sr. counsel submits that the main case agains t the petitioner is the BIEO P.S Case No. 35 of 2010 where the petitioner has al ready been arrested. He submits that the allegations made in the FIR of CID P.S Case No. 14 of 2011 are more or less identical with the allegations made in the FIR of BIEO P.S Case No. 35 of 2010. As a matter of fact, the BIEO case covers a ll aspects of the allegations where as the CID case is confined to the individua l allegation of the complainant. Learned Sr. counsel has pointed out that the FI R in the BIEO Case was lodged on 09-12-2010 whereas the FIR in the CID Case was filed later, on 23-02-2011 as a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magi strate. He contends that the BIEO case having been instituted at an earlier poin t of time, the subsequent FIRs filed, including the FIR in the CID case, cannot be treated and registered as separate cases. At best, it can be treated to be a statement under Section 162 Cr. P.C. In support of this submission, learned Sr. counsel refers to the decision of the Apex Court in the Case of Babubhai Vrs. St ate of Gujarat and Others; reported in (2010) 12 SCC 254. He further submits tha t it cannot be the objective of a criminal investigation to arrest and re-arrest an accused on the same set of allegations on the pretext of registration of a l arge number of cases. In this connection, he refers to and relies on the followi ng decisions: (1) (1983) 2 SCC 417; (Uday Chand and others Vrs. Sheikh Mohd. Abdullah, Chief M inister, J & K and others); (2) (1987) 2 GLR 292; ( Dr. A. Loso Vrs. The State of Manipur); and (3) 1998 (2) GLT 550; (Phanindra Medhi @ Lebu Vrs. State of Assam and others). Mr. Dutta finally presses into service the recent decision of th 12. e Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vrs. State of Maharasht ra and Others; reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694. He contends that since the accused is already in custody in the main case i.e. in the BIEO case, separate detention of the petitioner is not necessary in the present case and, therefore, submits that the interim bail granted by this Court should be made absolute.

#13. Mr. Z. Kamar, learned P.P, Assam referring to the materials coll ected during the course of the investigation so far, as available in the case di ary, submits that the gravity and magnitude of the offence is anormous and that it would require elaborate and extensive investigation for which custody of the petitioner is most essential. He further submits that the petitioner was interro gated for two days only on 02-02-2012 and 03-02-2012, which is inadequate in a c ase of this magnitude. He also highlighted the conduct of the petitioner, as acc ording to the learned P.P, because of the petitioner evading investigation, a Lo ok Out Circular (LOC) had to be issued by the CID. He submits that considering t he nature of the case, the prayer for pre arrest bail should be rejected. Learne d P.P presses into service the following decisions: (1) 1992 Crl. L. J 4032; (Harshad S. Mehta Vrs. Union of India and another); (2) AIR 1992 SC 1768; ( Central Bureau of Investigation, Special Investigation C ell-I, New Delhi Vrs. Anupam J. Kulkarni); and (3) (2000) 9 SCC 266; ( Budh Singh Vrs. State of Punjab).

#14. I have perused the case diary. The materials in the case diary r eveals that the petitioner was the independent in-charge of the company in Assam , called UNI PAY 2U MARKETING PVT. LTD. and he was actively involved in the mobi lization of the investments. This is contrary to the claim of the petitioner mad e in the bail petition particularly in paragraph-7 thereof that he was only an i nitial investor of the company. There are also other adverse materials against t he petitioner in the case diary.

#15. In a recent decision dated 19-07-2011 passed in Crl. Pet. No. 98 of 2010; (Accrescent Way Marketing Pvt. Ltd and two others Vrs. State of Assam and another), a Single Bench of this Court observed with concern that in recent times a large number of cases have been registered in different police stations of the State against various firms and companies who have induced a large number of people to invest money in such firms and companies by promising exorbitant r eturns on their investment. Considering the complex nature of the modus operandi of such firms and companies, this Court directed the Director General of Police , Assam to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) with Senior Officers to consolidate all identical cases and to investigate the same simultaneously.

#16. Considering the materials in the case diary and the serious and complex nature of the case and for the reasons mentioned in paragraph 14 above, I am of the considered view that the present is not a case where pre arrest bail should be granted to the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner is already in cus tody in connection with the BIEO P.S case No. 35 of 2010. Consequently, the pray er for pre arrest bail stands rejected. Interim bail granted on 19-01-2012 stand s recalled.

#17. Coming to the contention of Mr. Dutta, learned Sr. counsel regar ding the registration of several cases against the petitioner on similar allegat ions one after the other with the objective of keeping the petitioner in custo dy in one case after the other, I find that the I.O in the sealed cover submitte d before this Court has disclosed a total of 13(thirteen) cases registered again st the petitioner which are stated to be under investigation. He has however, gi ven a note that the said list of 13 cases is not exhaustive.

#18. Considering the fact that the high powered SIT constituted as pe r the direction of this Court is consolidating all identical cases and monitorin g the investigation of the same, the above statement of the I.O that the above list of cases is not exhaustive cannot be accepted. Following the various judici al pronouncements on the subject and in the interest of justice, I deem it appro priate to direct the I.O to make available to the petitioner, who is already in custody in the connected BIEO Case No. 35/2010, the details of all the cases reg istered against the petitioner as on date. This shall be done within a period of seven days from today.

#19. Regarding the other contention of Mr. Dutta regarding the non ma intainability of the FIR in CID Case No. 14 of 2011 being subsequent in point of time, considering the scope and ambit of a petition under Section 438 Cr. P.C, I am not inclined to enter into that aspect of the matter. However, it will be o pen to the petitioner to raise the said issue in an appropriate proceeding, if s o advised.

#20. But before parting with the case record, I must hasten to add th at the stand taken by the I.O in his affidavit that the interrogation of the pet itioner on 02-02-2012 and 03-02-2012 was a mere formality is really unfortunate and cannot be accepted. No interrogation of an accused can be mere formality. Mo reover, the petitioner is already in custody in connection with the related BIEO Case No. 35/2010. It is not understood as to why the I.O has not taken advantag e of the custody of the petitioner in the said case to further interrogate the p etitioner, if required. The I.O should bear in mind the directive of the Suprem e Court in the case of Joginder Kumar Vrs. State of UP & Ors.; reported in (199 4) 4 SCC 260, which is quoted hereunder:- (cid:28)No arrest can be made because it is lawful for the police officer to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing. The justification for the exerci se of it is quite another. The police officer must be able to justify the arrest apart from his power to do so. (cid:29) The I.O should also keep in mind that it is not the purpose of c riminal investigation to cause repeated arrest of an accused in one case after t he other relating to the same or similar nature of accusations to keep him in co ntinuous detention at the pre-trial stage. Moreover, this Court had already dire cted the SIT to consolidate all identical cases and to investigate them simultan eously. Beyond this, I refrain from saying any further.

#21. With the above decision and observations, the bail petition stan ds disposed of. The case diary is returned back to Mr. Z. Kamar, learned P.P, As sam.