Dhananjaya Sahoo vs State Of Orissa(EOW)

G. Satapathy, J

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).

This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with EOW, CID CB, Bhubaneswar PS. Case No. 02 of 2025 corresponding to CT Case No.02 of 2025 pending in the file of learned Presiding Officer, Designated Court, OPID Act, Cuttack for commission of offences punishable U/Ss. 420/467/468/471/120-B of IPC r/w.Sec.21(1)/ 21(3) of BUDS Act on the main allegation of misappropriating a sum of Rs.3,58,39,475/- by taking investments from 48 investors on the assurance of providing double benefit within ten months.

In the course of hearing, Mr.Dharanidhar Nayak, learned Senior Counsel who is being assisted by Ms. Bini Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the petitioner has provided near about Rs.45 lakhs to 22 investors, but the investigating agency has unnecessarily arrested the petitioner and put him behind the bar which itself is not in consonance with law of bail since the petitioner has intention to refund the money, however, the petitioner having been detained in custody with all his property seized by the investigating agency, he is not in a position to refund the money at present and no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody which amounts to pre-trial punishment. Mr.Nayak also submits that no offence of forgery is made out against the petitioner and some of the investors had allegedly deposited the amount in cash for which there is no valid document. On the aforesaid submissions, Mr.Nayak prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

On the other hand, Mr.P.Satapathy, learned Addl. PP by producing the written instruction received from the IO submits that not only the petitioner has cheated the innocent investors, but also swindled away a sum of Rs.3.58 crores and the intention of the petitioner is palpable from his allurement to return double money within ten months for their investment which is in fact not possible in any business and the intention of the petitioner can be gathered from the false representation made by him and the materials on record definitely reveals a case of forgery against the petitioner and, therefore, the bail application of the petitioner may kindly be rejected.

After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against the petitioner for misappropriating a sum of Rs.3,58,39,475/- of 48 investors as per the written instruction produced before this Court and the petitioner is allegedly the Director of the Company M/s. Mutual Alliance Global Private Limited in which company the investors have been allured by the petitioners to deposit the money. Besides, whether the offence of forgery is made out or not can be ascertained in the course of trial, but at the stage of consideration of bail, it is highly undesirable to opine as to whether the offence of forgery is made out or not. No doubt, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the alleged investment is also done in cash for which there is no proof, but the same can be decided in the trial. It is not a case of individual cheating or forgery, but it’s a case against the petitioner for deceiving 48 investors. In the aforesaid facts and circumstance and taking into account the nature and gravity of the offences as alleged against the petitioner vis-à-vis the accusations sought to be brought against him and regard being had to the materials so placed on record and one of offence i.e. Sec.467 of IPC alleged against the petitioner being punishable with maximum imprisonment for life and taking into account other circumstance on record in entirety, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

Hence, the bail application of the petitioner stands rejected. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. A copy of this order be immediately communicated to the learned trial Court.