Orissa High Court Dismisses Anticipatory Bail Plea Of Journalist Suman Chattopadhyay In Chit Fund Scam Case

The Orissa High Court on Thursday dismissed the anticipatory bail plea filed by Journalist Suman Chattopadhyay apprehending arrest by the CBI in connection with the Chit Fund Scam case.

Forming a prima facie opinion that his nexus with Saradha Group cannot be denied, a single judge bench comprising of Justice Satrughana Pujahar observed thus:

"The petitioner being an influential person and a journalist having connection with politicians, possibility of his using such contacts for growth of the ponzi firms is also not ruled out and the same can only be unearthed on custodial interrogation of the petitioner, as stated by the C.B.I. So, the allegation being serious in nature and the offence committed being economic offence and the petitioner is being investigated, custodial interrogation is much more fruitful as held by the Apex Court in the case of P. Chidambaram (supra), this Court is of the view that the petitioner has made out no case for his release on pre-arrest bail, more particularly when present is prima-facie not a case where the allegations brought against the petitioner can be said to be frivolous or groundless."

CBI had on 5th June 2014 registered a case against Sudipta Sen and several others of the "Saradha Group of Industries" under sec. 120B read with sec. 406 and 420 of IPC and sec. 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1973. The chargesheet was submitted on 13th December 2016 in the Special CBI Court, Bhubaneswar. The case was then committed to the PMLA Court in the State of Odisha after the application was filed by the Enforcement Directorate.

Suman Chattopadhyay, a journalist and Chief Editor of 'Ae Samay', a Bengali newspaper, was arrested in another case registered in Odisha against another Ponzi Company namely "I-Core EServices Ltd."

During the search conducted in his residence, some documents were found showing his relationship with the diversion of funds from Saradha Group of Industries to DPMPL, a company of which he earlier happened to be the Director and shareholder, and a subsequent subsequent misappropriation of an amount of Rs.1.04 Crore was also shown.

It was then alleged that Chattopadhyay and his Company entered into agreements with two companies of the Saradha Group in pursuance of which an amount of Rs.4,54,00,000/- of Saradha Group was diverted to him and his company DPMPL. All the agreements were thereafter canceled and Rs.3.5 Crore out of Rs.4,54,00,000/- was returned to Saradha Group, keeping the rest of the amount in tune of Rs.1,04,50,000/ with Chattopadhyay.

It was thus the case of the CBI that despite being aware that the Saradha Group and its selective companies were dealing with ponzi schemes and were defrauding the public, habitually entered into agreement with them in the garb of business dealing in order to extract money.

It was also alleged that agreements were canceled after getting illegal benefits of crores of rupee from those ponzi firms, to the ultimate loss and suffering of gullible depositors / investors.

On the other hand, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that since he was earlier examined by the investigating agency in connection with certain cases of Saradha Group registered at Kolkata, it would be a futile exercise for the C.B.I. to arrest him in connection with the present case which is also in connection with Saradha Group.

It was also submitted that the entire transaction was nothing but a business having no element of criminality and that the CBI already is in possession of all the documents of the transaction.

Considering the facts of the case, the Court while forming a prima facie opinion that there is a nexus of the petitioner with Saradha Group, observed thus:

"Since in this case the petitioner has been indicted in an economic offence which is of serious in nature and the larger angle of conspiracy with regard to patronage of political and other persons in growth of such ponzi firms are required to be unearthed, I am of the view that no effective investigation can be made by the police by enlarging the petitioner on pre-arrest bail, even if he is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation by remaining on pre-arrest bail."

Furthermore, the Court said:

"During course of investigation, admittedly the money trail of the said ponzi firm was found with the petitioner's firm. There is also material to show that the petitioner made advertisement through his media company about the lucrative scheme of ponzi firm which persuaded many more people to invest their hard earned money in such ponzi schemes."

"So also, the material has been collected indicating that the petitioner was lobbying in the Ministry of Finance, Government of India for the ponzi firm. The petitioner has also applied arm twisted method to collect money from the many ponzi firms knowing their illegal activities in the camouflage of business transaction. His custodial interrogation is likely to throw more light regarding involvement of many other influential people in growth of the ponzi firms and the commission of offence alleged which is an economic offence wherein lacs of gullible depositors were duped."

Title: Suman Chattopadhyay v. Republic of India

Click Here To Read Order