The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 2360 of 2021 An application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. --------------- Ranvajay Singh Baghel @ …. Ranvijoy Singh Baghel@ Ranvijoy Baghel -Versus- Petitioner Republic of India ...…. Opp. Party Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- _________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : M/s. P.P. Behera, A. Mohapatra K. Khuntra, B.C. Mohanta, B. Sahoo & P.S. Mahanty Advocates. For Opp. Party
Legal Reasoning
and the charge sheet does reveal a strong prima facie case against the petitioner. 8. As regards the contention relating to prolonged detention without trial, this Court had called upon the court below to submit a status report of the case. It was informed that the case is pending for consideration of charge awaiting production of co-accused Pushpendra Singh Baghel from Central Jail, Bharatpur, Rajasthan where he is said to have been lodged. While I have taken note of the seriousness of the allegations leveled against the petitioner at the same time I am conscious of the fact that no person can be detained indefinitely. It is trite law that right to speedy trial is a fundamental right of the accused. On query by this Court, learned counsel for the CBI has furnished a list of ten witnesses whom it seeks to examine specifically to prove the allegation against the petitioner. Given the previous conduct of the petitioner in not cooperating with the investigation, the apprehension Page 6 of 7 raised by the prosecution that if released at this stage, he may flee from justice does not appear to be unfounded or unreasonable. Therefore, notwithstanding non- commencement of the trial and continued detention of the petitioner in custody for a long period, I am unable to persuade myself to admit him to bail given the nature and seriousness of the allegations at least at this stage. 9.
Arguments
: Mr. S. Nayak, (Special Counsel for CBI) ___________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA J U D G M E N T 18th July, 2023 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioner is in custody since 31.01.2020 in connection with SPE No. 32 of 2014 pending in the court Page 1 of 7 of learned Special C.J.M. (CBI), Bhubaneswar for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 120- B/420/409 of IPC read with Sections 4/5/6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning), Act. 2. The facts of the case are that as per order passed on 09.05.2014 by the Supreme Court of India in W.P.(C) No. 401 of 2013 and W.P.(C) No. 413 of 2013 investigation of cases registered in different police stations in the State of West Bengal and Odisha were transferred to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Accordingly, an FIR was registered by the CBI, Calcutta bearing R.C. No. 37/S/2014, SCB-KOL dated 05.06.2014 corresponding to SPE Case No. 32 of 2014. This case had originally arisen out of Nuapada P.S. Case No.84 dated 15.05.2013 registered under Sections 120(B)/420/34 of IPC read with Sections 4/5/6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act. 3. The FIR allegations are to the effect that a company in the name of M/s. Sai Prakash Financial Advisory Services Private Limited having its offices at Nuapada and other parts of the company had collected huge amount of Page 2 of 7 money from the public by luring them to deposit in various schemes launched by it with promise of high returns. However, the company was actually running an illegal money circulation scheme being neither listed with the RBI, NBFC or SEBI. It was alleged that the sole intention of the company was to defraud and cheat the gullible depositors. In the process, huge amount of money to the tune of Rs.7,51,04,547.57/- was collected under various deposit schemes. One Pushpendra Singh Baghel was the founder Chairman of the company, while the petitioner was one of its directors. In course of investigation it was found that the amount of money so collected from the public was transferred to the personal accounts of said Pushpendra Singh Baghel, his wife Pushpanjali Singh Baghel and the present petitioner, who is his younger brother. It is further alleged that Sai Prakash group of companies is comprised of as many as 19 registered companies. On completion of investigation it was initially found that a sum of Rs. 27,50,000/- was diverted from the company’s account to the account of the petitioner. Investigation being kept open supplementary Page 3 of 7 charge sheet was submitted wherein further amount being detected, the total amount found to have been transferred to the petitioner account came to Rs.36,97,000/-. 4. Heard Mr. P.P. Behera, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sarthak Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the CBI. 5. Mr. Behera would argue that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case as he was simply a director having no direct control over the funds, the management of which was under the supervision of other directors. Mr. Behera further argues that even otherwise the petitioner has been in custody since 31.01.2020 and there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded at an early date. Hence, his continued detention without trial has seriously affected his fundamental right to liberty enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution of India. 6. Mr. Sarthak Nayak, on the other hand, would argue that the petitioner had absconded during investigation and it was with much difficulty that he could be apprehended. He consistently avoided to receive the several notices issued by the investigating agency for Page 4 of 7 which charge sheet was submitted showing him an absconder. Even the NBW could not be executed for which the court below issued proclamation and attachment under Sections 82/83 Cr.P.C. Therefore, no leniency should be shown to the petitioner as there is every chance that if released, he would flee from justice. On merits Mr. Nayak would argue that the initial and supplementary charge sheet clearly reveal the money trail and the amounts diverted from the company’s account to the petitioner’s personal account. All these are based on documents which can be easily proved. Therefore, according to Mr. Nayak there is a strong prima facie case against the petitioner. 7. I have considered the rival contentions and have also gone through the records carefully. There is no denying that serious allegations have been leveled against the petitioner. The petitioner being the younger brother of the principal accused Pushpendra, prima facie appears to have played a role not only in collecting deposits from the public, but also in misappropriating substantial amount thereof by diverting to his personal account. Such Page 5 of 7 financial misdemeanor is said to be to the tune of Rs.36,97,000/-. Of course these are allegations only and not proved as yet. But then a careful reading of the FIR
Decision
For the foregoing reasons therefore, I am not inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioner. The bail application is therefore, rejected. However, the court below is directed to take all possible steps to commence trial at least against the petitioner and to conclude the same within six months. The prosecution is also directed to examine the ten named witnesses within such period. It shall be open to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail, if trial is not concluded within the aforementioned period. B.C. Tudu Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHIGAL CHANDRA TUDU Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 19-Jul-2023 10:05:15 ……..……………………. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Page 7 of 7