The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ABLAPL No. 3097 of 2024 Chakrapani Sarangi …. Petitioner Mr. Rajjeet Roy, Advocate -versus- Union of India (CBI) …. Opp. Party
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Sarthak Nayak, Spl, Counsel (CBI) CORAM: JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No.
Decision
ORDER 13.05.2024 01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and the State. 2. By means of this application, the Petitioner seeks grant of bail U/s.438 Cr.P.C. in apprehension of arrest for his alleged involvement in the offences U/s. 120-B/409/420, I.P.C., R/w. Sections 4, 5 & 6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, in connection with CBI/SCB/Kol P.S. Case No. RC.49/S/2014 of CBI, SPE, EOB-VII, Bhubaneswar corresponding to T.R. Case No.05 of 2018 pending in the court of learned Special Judge, CBI-I., Bhubaneswar. 3. It is alleged that pursuant to the order dated 09.05.2014 of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in WPC No.401 of 2013, the Central Bureau of Investigation took over the investigation of this case against the Sea Shore Group of Company by registering an FIR bearing Regd. No. RC.49/S/2014-Kol dated 05.06.2014 against the accused persons including the present Petitioner. According to the learned counsel for Page 1 of 2 // 2 // the Petitioner, the CBI has submitted preliminary charge-sheet bearing No.05 of 2015 dated 07.03.2015 against eighteen accused persons for commission of alleged offences U/s.120-B/409/420, I.P.C., R/w. Sections 4, 5 & 6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. According to the learned counsel, the CBI subsequently on 12.01.2018 filed the supplementary charge-sheet bearing No.01 of 2018 against two accused persons keeping the investigation open. The name of the present Petitioner does not find place either in the preliminary charge-sheet submitted in the year 2015 or the supplementary charge-sheet submitted in the year 2018. According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the CBI is now looking for the presence of the Petitioner which the Petitioner could know as his brother-in-law Umashankar Satapathy has been appearing before the agency pursuant to the notice issued by the CBI on him. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the Petitioner was appointed as a director in two sister concerns of Seashore Group of Companies namely Seashore Consultancy Private Limited later renamed as Seashore Agricultural Promotion Company Private Limited and Seashore Funds Management Private Limited. According to him, much prior to the registration of the FIR by the Crime Branch with effect from 18.07.2012 and the investigation having been taken over by the CBI, the Petitioner had resigned from the company with effect from 12.02.2008. Consequently, the Petitioner had worked as Director of the said Companies for a period of two years only. The learned counsel subscribes the Form No.32 showing disclosure of his resignation from the Company. 4. Mr. Rajjeet Roy, learned counsel further submits that the Petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the investigation if any to be Page 2 of 5 // 3 // conducted by the CBI and has no intention to avoid but has strong apprehension that his liberty may be curtailed even though he has not been charge-sheeted either by the Crime Branch at the initial stage or subsequently by the CBI in the last 12 years despite the fact that the preliminary and supplementary charge-sheets have already been filed in the meanwhile. 5. Mr. Sarthak Nayak, the learned counsel representing the CBI on the contrary submitted that the Petitioner is involved in a huge scam and despite the notice being issued to the Petitioner on several occasion, he did not appear and co-operate the CBI for the purpose of investigation. He further submitted that keeping in view the stake the money involved it is not desirable that the Petitioner be extended any kind of protection more so when no such material is available against him for the last several years as to his apprehension. 6. From the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective Parties and the documents placed before this Court by the CBI the notices allegedly sent to the Petitioner cannot be taken as proper notice as the same could have been issued through the local police if, for any reason the presence of the Petitioner could not be procured in the first notice showing him absent. Admittedly no such endeavour has been undertaken by the CBI to ensure the receipt of notice by the Petitioner. The very fact as to the involvement of the present Petitioner in the alleged scam during his period of incumbency as Director in the Company though appear serious is obviously a matter of trial. The fact that the CBI has already submitted the preliminary charge-sheet so also the supplementary charge-sheet during the period of 2015 and 2018, without a semblance of allegations against the present Petitioner Page 3 of 5 // 4 // suggests that the material available on record prima facie does not require a custodial interrogation of the Petitioner. In that view of the mater, though there is a justification for insisting the presence of the Petitioner for the purpose of investigation, if any, but may not be a custodial interrogation. 7. In the case of Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth vs. State of Gujarat & Another, (Criminal Appeal Nos.1134-1135 of 2015 arising out of Spl. Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos.6028-6029 of 2014), the Supreme Court held as under – “It is imperative for the courts to carefully and with meticulous precision evaluate the facts of the case. The discretion to grant bail must be exercised on the basis of the available material and the facts of the particular case. In cases where the court is of the considered view that the accused has joined the investigation and he is fully cooperating with the investigating agency and is not likely to abscond, in that event, custodial interrogation should be avoided. A great ignominy, humiliation and disgrace is attached to many serious consequences not only for the accused but for the entire family and at times for the entire community. Most people do not make any distinction between arrest at a pre- conviction stage or post-conviction stage.” to arrest. Arrest leads 8. In view of the above, the Petitioner is directed to appear before the CBI Authorities on or before 30th May, 2024 to receive further instruction in connection with the investigation. In the event, an intensive investigation is required and it is found that the Petitioner is not co-operating with the Authorities of the CBI, keeping in view the back ground facts as discussed above, in absence of a strong and reasonable ground, the custody may not be insisted upon and in such Page 4 of 5 // 5 // eventuality, his presence be secured with sufficient conditions and if necessary upon arrest, he be released on bail with sufficient sureties as would deem fit and proper keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. It is further directed that the Petitioner shall co-operate with the investigating agency with all the relevant/necessary records as and when required and shall appear in person before the Authorities. The ABLAPL is disposed of accordingly. Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) Bijay Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BIJAY KETAN SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 14-May-2024 18:08:06 Page 5 of 5