The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.4813 of 2025 (In the matter of application under Section 483 of the BNSS). Debabrata Sinha … Petitioner -versus- Central Bureau of Investigation … Opposite Party For Petitioner : Mr. A.K.Mohanty Advocate For Opposite Party : Mr. S.Nayak, Advocate for CBI CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY DATE OF HEARING & DATE OF JUDGMENT:22.08.2025 (ORAL) G. Satapathy, J. 1. This is an application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Kolkata PS CBI/SCB/KOL RC-30-S-2014-KOL in connection with Baliapal PS Case No. 82 of 2013 corresponding to SPE/25 of 2014 which further corresponds to TR No. 3/2023, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss. 420/409/120-B/34 of the IPC read with Sec. 4, 5 & 6 of Prize Cheat & Money Circulation Scheme (Banning Act), 1978 pending in the file of learned Special Judge(CBI) No.I, Bhubaneswar. BLAPL No.4813 of 2025 Page 1 of 10 2. The allegation involved in this case arises out
Legal Reasoning
of an FIR being lodged by ASI of Police, Baliapal PS under Baliapal PS Case No. 82 dated 14.05.2023 against the company “M/s. Infinity Realcon Limited”, Baliapal (in short, “IRL) and its CMD namely Pranab Mukherjee and Directors-Sarbari Mukherjee, Prabir Mukherjee, Soumen Mallick and Branch Manager, Baliapal Brnach, Ganesh Kar and it is alleged therein that the company without having any statutory authorization is illegally collecting public deposits through its officials by alluring the innocent depositors with promise of high returns, but subsequently on the intervention of Apex Court , the CBI took up the investigation and in the course of investigation, it was unearthed that the Directors of M/s.IRL through illegal investment schemes have collected a substantial sum of Rs.565 crores during 2009-10 to 2013-14, out of which an amount of Rs.343 crores have not been returned to the investors. Accordingly, the CBI submitted first supplementary charge sheet on 30.12.2016 against the CMD Pranab Mukherjee and Directors Prabir Mukherjee, Soumen Mallick & M/s. IRL for commission of offences punishable BLAPL No.4813 of 2025 Page 2 of 10 U/Ss. 120-B/420/409 of IPC & Sec.4, 5 & 6 of the Prize Cheat & Money Circulation Schemes (Banning Act), 1978 (in short, “the Act”) keeping the investigation open U/S. 173(8) of CrPC, however, finding the complicity of the present petitioner, he was taken into custody being arrested on 13.07.2021 on the allegation that he being the proprietor Consultancy firm namely M/s. Devson Consultants, Kolkata engaged in registering different companies with Registrar of Companies (ROC) aided and facilitated illegal deposit collection scheme of M/s.IRL by creating and registering of charges for Secured Debentures worth Rs.50 Crores from the office of ROC, Kolkata by receiving illegal payment of Rs.23 Lakhs from co-accused Pranab Mukherjee. Accordingly, second supplementary charge-sheet was submitted by the CBI against the present petitioner Debabrata Sinha and others. 3.
Legal Reasoning
In the course of hearing, Mr. Atul Kumar Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was neither named in the FIR nor was charge-sheeted in the first charge-sheet, but subsequently, he was arrested on 13.07.2021 and BLAPL No.4813 of 2025 Page 3 of 10 charge-sheeted in the supplementary charge-sheet on 09.11.2021, however, the trial is yet to commence. It is further submitted by him that principal co-accused namely Pranab Mukherjee has already been granted bail by the Apex Court, so also other co-accused persons namely Lakshman Srinivasan, Subha Kumar Banerjee, Uttam Munshi and Pravat Kumar Dash. It is, however, submitted that this Court has also granted bail to co- accused Swapan Kumar De. Accordingly, Mr. Mohanty prays to grant bail to the petitioner by taking into account the pre-trial detention of the petitioner in custody. 3.1. On the other hand, Mr. Sarthak Nayak, learned counsel for the CBI opposes the bail application of the petitioner not only by making oral submission, but also by filing written objection. It is, accordingly, submitted by Mr. Nayak that the petitioner has actively aided and facilitated the illegal deposit of collection schemes of M/s.IRL by orchestrating the creation and registration of charges for Secured Debentures worth Rs.50 Crores from the Office of ROC, Kolkata and such action of the petitioner was in fact intended to mislead BLAPL No.4813 of 2025 Page 4 of 10 the innocent investors to believe that their investments were safe and secured. It is also submitted by Mr. Nayak that the petitioner unauthorizedly used the digital signature of CA-Dipankar Roy for verification and certification for securing debentures worth Rs.50 Crores from the accused company by arranging a fictitious valuation report of Rs.50 Crores relating to the accused company’s assets and the petitioner has received Rs.23 Lakhs for the said purpose. Mr. Nayak under aforesaid submissions prays to reject the bail application of the petitioner. 4. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against the petitioner for illegally creating and securing debentures worth Rs.50 Crores for M/s.IRL from the office of ROC by unauthorizedly using the digital signature of CA-Dipankar Roy and receiving a sum of Rs.23 Lakhs for the said purpose. It is not doubt true that there is allegation of scam of financial fraud of Rs.565 Crores, but such allegation is against the officials of M/s.IRL. Whatever may be the allegation against the petitioner, it is only the allegation which is subject BLAPL No.4813 of 2025 Page 5 of 10 matter of the trial, however, the petitioner is in custody since 13.07.2021. It is also admitted by Mr. S. Nayak that the trial in respect of accused is yet to commence and some of the co-accused have already been granted bail. Law is fairly well settled that bail should not be withheld as pre-trial punishment. It is equally true that an accused is presumed to be innocent in criminal law unless proven guilty at the trial. Right to speedy trial is the fundamental right of an accused and when the prosecution intends to continue the detention of the accused, it is its duty to provide fair trial to such accused. In Manish Sisodia V. Directorate of Enforcement; 2024 SCC Online SC 1920, the Apex Court held as under:- “28. Before considering the submissions of the learned ASG with regard to maintainability of the present appeals on account of the second order of this Court, it will be apposite to refer to certain observations made by this Court in its first order, which read thus: 26. Xx xx xx xx xx xxx xx xxx xxx 27. Xx Xx xx xx xx xx xxx xx xxx jail before being 28. Detention or pronounced guilty of an offence should not become punishment without trial. If the trial gets protracted despite assurances of the prosecution, and it is BLAPL No.4813 of 2025 Page 6 of 10 and Drugs clear that case will not be decided within a foreseeable time, the prayer for bail may be meritorious. While the prosecution may pertain to an economic offence, yet it may not be proper to equate these cases with those punishable with death, imprisonment for life, ten years or more like offences under the Narcotic Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, murder, cases of rape, dacoity, kidnaping for ransom, mass violence, etc. Neither is this a case where 100/1000s of depositors have been defrauded. The allegations have to be established and proven. The right to bail in cases of delay, coupled with incarceration for a long period, depending on the nature of the allegations, should be read into Section 439 of the Code and Section 45 of the PML Act. The the constitutional mandate is the higher law, and it is the basic right of the person charged of an offence and not convicted, that he be ensured and given a speedy trial. When the trial is not proceeding for reasons not attributable to the accused, the court, unless there are good reasons, may well be guided to exercise the power to grant bail. This would be truer where the trial would take years”. reason that is 5. In view of the above facts and taking into consideration the allegations against the petitioner keeping in view grant of bail to co-accused persons and the pre-trial detention of the petitioner in custody and trial being not likely to be concluded in near future in view of number of witnesses cited in the charge-sheet to BLAPL No.4813 of 2025 Page 7 of 10 be examined and the documents reflected therein to be proved in the course of trial, this Court without expressing any opinion on merits admits the petitioner to bail. 6. Hence, the bail application of the petitioner stands allowed and the petitioner 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 stringent conditions: - (i) the petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail and the petitioner further shall investigation, if any by appearing before the IO as and when required, co-operate with the (ii) the petitioner in the course of trial shall attend the trial Court on each date fail unless his of posting without 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.269 of BNS, 2023 in accordance with law, BLAPL No.4813 of 2025 Page 8 of 10 (iii) the petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the learned trial Court till disposal of the case, (iv) the Petitioner shall inform the Court as well as the Investigating Agency as to his place of residence during the trial by number(s), his mobile providing residential address, e-mail, if any, and other documents in support of proof of his residence. The Petitioner shall not change his 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 his presence, proclamation U/S.84 of BNSS, 2023 is issued and the Petitioner fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the learned trial Court initiate for offence proceeding against him U/S.209 of BNS, 2023 in accordance with law. liberty is at to if any (vi) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, (if not already surrendered), and in case, he is not a holder of the same, he shall swear an affidavit to that effect. If his passport has already been seized or he has already surrendered his pass-port before the learned Special Judge, CBI, that fact should also be supported by an affidavit. (vii) This Court reserves liberty to the CBI to make an appropriate application for modification/ recalling the order passed by this Court, if for any reason, the petitioner violates any of the conditions imposed by this Court. BLAPL No.4813 of 2025 Page 9 of 10 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 similar/grave offences on prima facie accusations may be treated as a ground for cancellation of bail in this case. 7.
Decision
Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. 8. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules. (G. Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 22nd day of August, 2025/Jayakrushna Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: JAYAKRUSHNA DASH Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 26-Aug-2025 13:22:21 BLAPL No.4813 of 2025 Page 10 of 10