The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.10329 of 2023 Ripan Kumar Jena … Petitioner Mr. D.P. Dhal, Sr. Advocate -versus- State of Orissa (OPID) … Opposite Party Mr. A.K. Nayak, Advocate (OPID) Order No. 04. CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY ORDER(ORAL) 21.02.2024 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2. This is a bail application U/S.439 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Bhubaneswar EOW P.S. Case No.18 of 2022 corresponding to C.T. Case No.5(c) of 2022 pending in the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-(Spl. Court) OPID, Judge, Balasore, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.420/406/467/468/471/120-B of IPC r/w Section 66 of IT Act and Section 6 of OPID Act, on the allegation of cheating innocent investors by taking deposits on the assurance of high return and in the process, collecting investment to the tune of Rs.5,72,00,000/- approximately from 45 investors without any authority. 3.
Legal Reasoning
Heard, Mr. D.P. Dhal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Anil Kumar Nayak, learned counsel appearing for OPID in the present Page 1 of 3 matter and perused the record. Mr. D.P. Dhal, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits before this Court that although there is allegation against the petitioner for collecting investment on the assurance of high returns, but the petitioner has never intended to cheat or defraud the investors which is palpable from his conduct of returning Rs.1,36,27,164/- to 32 depositors out of the total investment of Rs.1,97,53,003/- collected from 45 depositors. Mr. Dhal, accordingly, prays to grant bail to the petitioner by taking into consideration his conduct as well as the pre trial detention in custody. 4. In reply, while opposing the bail application of the petitioner, Mr. A.K. Nayak, learned counsel for the OPID submits that the petitioner has collected investment for Rs.5,72,00,000-/ from 45 investors, but on being asked, he candidly submits that the petitioner has refunded Rs.1,36,27,164/- to 32 investors, but still the petitioner is yet to refund the rest of the amount to the remaining investors and the investigation is also going on. Further, Mr. Nayak submits that since the petitioner is involved in economic offence, a different approach has to be adopted while considering the bail application of the petitioner and he should not be released on bail merely because he has refunded some amount to some of the investors, especially when the petitioner himself being the Managing Director of GRSS Green Tech Private Limited and proprietor of OMM Agency had collected the amount personally by entering into agreement with different investors. Page 2 of 5 5. It appears that the petitioner is in custody since April, 2023 and in the meanwhile, preliminary charge- sheet has been filed against the petitioner, but the investigation is kept open for unearthing further involvement of the petitioner and apprehension of co- accused persons. It is also admitted by the learned counsel for the OPID that there are 57 charge-sheeted witnesses. In view of the aforesaid situation, it is eventually a guess as to when the trial will commence and when it would conclude, but the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than ten months. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has refunded Rs.1,36,27,164/-. 6. One of the important considerations for grant of bail is the “tripod test”, but preliminary charge sheet having submitted against the petitioner in this case would reasonably exclude the possibility of influencing witnesses and in the context of flight risk, the petitioner can be directed to surrender his passport, if any, and in the event, he has no passport, he may directed to file an affidavit before the learned trial Court towards the same. Since the case revolves around mainly on documentary evidence, which much have been seized by the investigating agency, there may not be any apprehension of tampering evidence by the petitioner. 7. In the aforesaid facts and situation and taking into consideration custody of the petitioner and submission of charge-sheet in the meanwhile, this Court admits the petitioner to bail. Page 3 of 5 8. Hence, the bail application of the petitioner stands allowed and the petitioner is allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) only with two local 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 and (ii) the petitioner in the course of trial shall attend the trial Court on each date of posting without fail unless his 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, the petitioner shall not (iii) the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission till disposal of the case by giving his present address of stay, leave (iv) the petitioner shall inform the Court as well as the IO as to his place of residence during the trial by providing his mobile number(s), residential address, e-mail, if any, and other documents in support of proof of his residence, (v) in case the petitioner misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure his 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 him for offence U/S.174-A of the IPC in accordance with law and (vi) the petitioner shall appear before the IO as and when required and shall cooperate Page 4 of 5 with the further investigation in the present case. (vii) the petitioner shall surrender his Passport, if any, in the Court in seisin of the case till conclusion of trial, unless he is permitted to take back such Passport to use for specific purpose during the pendency of case. 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 type of offences on prima facie accusations may be treated as a ground for cancellation of bail in this case. 9. It is made clear that the Court in seisin of the case, while releasing the petitioner on bail must verify the residential proof of the surety by taking the help of local police, if required and such exercise must be completed within a reasonable period of not more than seven days of filing bail bonds.
Decision
Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per 10. 11. Rules. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASMITA DAS Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 22-Feb-2024 10:50:14 Subhasmita (G. Satapathy) Judge Page 5 of 5