Introduction
The Orissa High Court has declined to entertain successive bail applications filed by two individuals accused of defrauding investors in a chit fund scam. This judgment underscores the principle that bail applications cannot be reconsidered without a significant change in circumstances.
Background
The petitioners enticed investors to deposit large sums of money with the promise of high returns, issuing bond papers in return. However, they failed to return the principal or interest by January 2021. When pressured, one petitioner issued invalid cheques, and subsequently threatened the investors against approaching the police.
Legal Proceedings
An FIR was lodged at Dhenkanal Town Police Station, leading to the registration of a case under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and various financial regulations. The investigation was later handled by the Economic Offences Wing in Bhubaneswar.
Petitioners' Arguments
Senior Advocate Yasobanta Das, representing the petitioners, argued that the investments did not qualify as 'deposits' under the OPID Act. He contended that the slow progress of the trial, with many witnesses yet to be examined, warranted bail for the petitioners who had already been in custody for over two years.
Prosecution's Stand
The State's Special Counsel, Bibekananda Bhuyan, opposed the bail, highlighting the significant amount of money involved and the gravity of the allegations. The court was urged to consider the public interest and the unchanged circumstances since the previous bail rejection.
Court's Observations
The Division Bench, comprising Justices Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Chittaranjan Dash, emphasized that economic offences are serious, involving calculated and deliberate actions for personal gain at the community's expense. The court reiterated that without a change in circumstances, successive bail applications are unjustifiable, as they would merely be a review of prior decisions.
Conclusion
The court concluded that there was no substantial change in circumstances to warrant bail. However, it directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings, setting a six-month deadline for conclusion. The petitioners were given the liberty to renew their bail applications if the trial was not completed within this period.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.