The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 3212 of 2024 Basanti Mondal … Petitioner Mr. S.R. Mulia, Advocate Republic of India (CBI) … Opposite Party -versus- Mr. S. Nayak, Advocate(CBI) CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY ORDER(ORAL) 28.01.2025 Order No. 17. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2. This is a bail application U/S.439 of CrPC by the Petitioner for grant of bail in connection with SPE Case No. 21/2014 corresponding to R.C. No.26/S/2014- Kol pending in the file of learned Special C.J.M.(CBI), Bhubaneswar for commission of offences punishable U/Ss 120-B/420/409 of IPC r/w Sections 4,5 & 6 of Prize Chits & Money Circulation Schemes Act, on the allegation of operating illegal money circulation business through different Company along with other accused persons alluring depositors to invest money on the assurance of getting high return and in the process, cheating the gullible depositors. 3.
Legal Reasoning
Heard, Mr. Satya Ranjan Mulia, learned counel for the Petitioner and Mr. Sarthak Nayak, learned counsel for the CBI in the matter and perused the record. Page 1 of 5 4. It is, however, not disputed that the Petitioner was arrested and produced before the concerned Court on 12.05.2018 and since then, she is in custody, but the trial is yet to be completed. The report furnished by the learned trial Court reveals about examination of only 11 witnesses with 166 charge sheeted witnesses remaining to be examined, but the trial had commenced w.e.f. 31.01.2019 and thereby, it can be presumed that a considerable period of time is required for disposal of the case. Further, it is also not in dispute that the Petitioner was granted interim bail in IA No. 391 of 2024, but she voluntarily surrendered to the custody after availing the interim bail. It is of course objected by learned CBI counsel for release of Petitioner on bail on the ground that she had absconded and eluded the investigating agency for five years and with much difficulty, she was apprehend at Bombay after near about five years of the registration of the case, but fact remains that right to speedy trial is the fundamental right of an accused as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Of course, what extent of time would be considered as a delay in disposal of the case has not been defined precisely in any statute or in any law, but 6 and ½ years is definitely a long period for a lady kept in custody on the assurance of trial and the fact that the examination of 166 charge sheeted witnesses would take considerable time. Right to speedy trial as guaranteed by our Constitution cannot be denied to an under trial accused, Page 2 of 5 who cannot be kept confined in custody for a indefinite period merely on the expectation of conclusion of trial some times after, more particularly when it is not known when the trial would be concluded even after confining the accused in custody for more than six years for an offence which prescribes punishment extendable to life. The right as guaranteed to the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India in a situation like this on the admitted facts of the case would definitely prevail over and above the restrictions imposed for grant of bail. This Court, therefore, considers it that the right to speedy trial in this case appears to have been infringed for the Petitioner who has already been detained in custody for more than six years. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstance and taking into account the long custody of the Petitioner who is a lady and extending the benefit of proviso to Sec. 437 of CrPC, this Court without expressing any view on merits admits the Petitioner to bail. 6. Hence, the bail application of the Petitioner stands allowed and she is allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) only with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin of the case on such terms and conditions as deem fit and proper by it with following conditions:- (i) the petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail, Page 3 of 5 (ii) the petitioner in the course of trial shall attend the trial Court on each date of posting without fail unless her attendance is dispensed with. In case the Petitioner fails without sufficient cause to appear in the Court in accordance with the terms of the bail, the learned trial Court may proceed against the Petitioner for offence U/S.229-A of IPC in accordance with law, (iii) the petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission till disposal of the case by intimating her present address of stay to the concerned Court, (iv) the Petitioner shall inform the Court as well as the Investigating Agency as to her place of residence during the trial by providing number(s), her mobile residential address, e-mail, if any, and other documents in support of proof of her residence. The Petitioner shall not change her address of residence without intimating to the Court and Investigating Agency, (v) in case the Petitioner misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure their presence, proclamation U/S.82 of Cr.P.C. is issued and the Petitioner fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the learned trial Court is at liberty to initiate proceeding against her for offence U/S.174-A of the IPC in accordance with law, (vi) the Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Agency as and when required and shall cooperate with the further investigation in the present case, (vii) the Petitioner shall surrender her passport, if any, in the Court in seisin of Page 4 of 5 the case till conclusion of trial, unless she is permitted to take back such passport to use the for specific purpose during pendency of the case and in case, the petitioner is not having any passport, she shall file an affidavit before the trial Court indicating the same. It is clarified that the Court in seisin of the case will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the petitioner without further reference to this Court, if any of the above conditions are violated or a case for cancellation of bail is otherwise made out. In the wake of aforesaid, the subsequent involvement of the petitioner in future for grave/similar offence on prima facie accusations may be treated as a ground for cancellation of bail in this case.
Decision
Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per 7. 8. Rules. (G. Satapathy) Judge Priyajit Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRIYAJIT SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 30-Jan-2025 17:42:50 Page 5 of 5