Successive Bail Pleas Can't Be Entertained Without Change In Circumstances: Orissa High Court Denies Bail To Two In Chit Fund Case

The Orissa High Court has declined to entertain successive bail applications filed by two persons accused of siphoning off crores of rupees from gullible investors with the promise of high returns.

While pointing out the pre-conditions for considering successive bail applications, the single bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo observed –

“If a bail application is rejected considering some grounds urged by the counsel for the accused and on the selfsame materials and without any change in the circumstances, the successive bail application is moved and the Court is asked to reconsider the prayer of bail, it would be an endless exercise for the Court and entertaining such application would be a sheer wastage of valuable time of the Court.”

Prosecution Case

The petitioners induced the informant and his friends to deposit money in the share market to get high rate of interest. Being allured by such assurance, they deposited crores of rupees with the petitioners' company and were issued with bond papers.

However, the petitioners did not return any interest or the principal amount to the investors till January, 2021. When the depositors insisted the petitioners to return their money, one of the petitioners issued cheques. When the cheques were deposited in bank for payment, the signature of the petitioner did not match with the specimen signature.

Subsequently, when the depositors asked for the money, one of the petitioners informed them that he has lost the money and also threatened them not to report the matter with police otherwise to face dire consequences.

Being aggrieved by the action of the petitioners, the informant lodged an FIR in Dhenkanal Town Police Station and a case was registered under Sections 420/406/467/468/471/120-B/506 of the IPC read with Sections 4/5/6 of the Prize, Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 read with Section 6 of the Odisha Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 2011. Subsequently, the charge of investigation was taken over by Economic Offences Wings, Bhubaneswar.

Contentions of Parties

Yasobanta Das, Senior Advocate informed the Court that the petitioners had approached the Court earlier seeking bail but the same was rejected in July, 2023 taking into account the huge amount of money involved as well as the nature of allegations against the petitioners.

The senior counsel argued that the investment made by the depositors would not come under the definition of the term 'deposit' under Section 2(b) of the OPID Act. He further contended that since the trial is progressing in snail's pace and 28 witnesses are yet to be examined by the trial Court and as the petitioners have already stayed in the judicial custody for more than two years, they ought to be granted bail.

On the other side, Bibekananda Bhuyan, Special Counsel for the State (OPID) argued that the petitioners have taken crores of rupees from the investors and since there was no challenge either to taking of cognizance of offence or framing of charge under Section 6 of the OPID Act, the Court should not give any finding whether the ingredients of the offence under Section 6 of the OPID Act is made out or not.

Court's Findings

The Bench, at the outset, referred to different judgments of the Apex Court relating to tenability of plea of bail in cases involving economic offences.

“Economic offences are committed with cool calculation and deliberate design solely with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. In such type of offences, while granting bail, the Court has to keep in mind, inter alia, the larger interest of public and State.”

The Court further noted that both the petitioners were earlier denied bail by the High Court. Subsequent to the denial of bail, there has not been substantial change in the circumstances of the case. Therefore, in absence of change of circumstances, successive bail pleas cannot be entertained otherwise it would be a sheer review of the previous order.

“While entertaining such subsequent bail applications, the Court has a duty to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail application was rejected and what are the fresh grounds which persuade it to warrant the evaluation and consideration of the bail application afresh and to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier application,” it observed.

Accordingly, the Court held that there is no palpable change in circumstances warranting grant of bail. However, it directed the trial Court to expedite the trial and conclude the same within six months. It also granted liberty to the petitioners to renew their prayer for bail if the trial is not completed within the said period.

Case Title: Pallavi Mishra @ Pallavi Hota v. State of Odisha (O.P.I.D.) & another matter

Case Nos: BLAPL No. 11483 of 2023 & BLAPL No. 556 of 2024

Date of Order: August 05, 2024

Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. Yasobanta Das, Senior Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Bibekananda Bhuyan & Mr. J.P. Patra, Special Counsel (O.P.I.D.); Mr. Jeetendra Sahu, Advocate for the Informant

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ori) 64

Click Here To Read/Download Order