Dismissed

Ashutosh Biswal v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC15 Dec 2021ABLAPL/4069/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa dismissed a pre-arrest bail application filed by the petitioners accused of operating a Ponzi scheme under various IPC and Prize Chit Act charges. The Court rejected the plea for release, noting that while the charge sheet was filed, custodial interrogation was still required to unearth evidence, given the serious nature of the fraud.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for pre-arrest bail of the Petitioners was rejected and the application was dismissed.

Ashutosh Biswal Vs State of Odisha — Cheating and Forgery | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

ABLAPL No.4069 of 2021

¶3

Ashutosh Biswal and another

¶4

Petitioners

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha

¶7

…. Opposite Party

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE S. PUJAHARI

ORDER

Order No.

15.12.2021

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶14

The Petitioners apprehending their arrest in Bhanjanagar P.S. Case No.247 of 2013 registered for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 420 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and Sections 4, 5 & 6 of the Prize Chit and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978, have filed this petition for their release on prearrest bail. But, in the meanwhile, charge sheet has been filed under Sections 120-B, 467, 468, 471, 420 and 406 of I.P.C. read with Sections 4, 5 & 6 of the Prize Chit and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 and Section 6 of the O.P.I.D. Act.

¶15

Heard Mr. Jitendra Samantaray, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the O.P.I.D.

¶16

The allegation of the prosecution is that the Petitioners floated a company, namely, Avas India Private Limited in the year 2011 and collected huge deposits from different persons being attracted by promise of lucrative returns on investment made. However, on police investigation, it was found that the aforesaid is a ponzi firm and

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

// 2 //

¶19

whatever return given to anyone it was not returns on the investment, but return of investment of others.

¶20

It is stated by Mr. Jitendra Samantaray, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners that there is no material that the Petitioners were the Directors of the Company and none of them have stated that they are Directors of the Company. As such, he could not have been prosecuted in this case for the fault of the Company and furthermore, it is submitted that investigation having been completed, they deserves to be released on pre-arrest bail.

¶21

However, learned counsel appearing for the O.P.I.D. submits that materials have been collected from the R.O.C. indicating the fact that the Petitioners are the Directors of the Company and they have collected huge amount of money. Petitioners are absconding. The case is of the year 2013, notwithstanding the submission of the charge sheet, custodial interrogation of the Petitioners is required for collection of further evidence in this case. In such premises, he submits not to release the Petitioners on pre-arrest bail.

¶22

In rejoinder, Mr. Samantaray, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that R.O.C. document is not sufficient enough to say that the Petitioners were the Directors, as none of them witnesses stated that they were Directors or no where a money trail was found to his personal account and charge sheet has been filed, he deserves to be released on pre-arrest bail.

¶23

However, on considering of the facts and submissions made, especially the fact that such fraud and forgery are in rise and ponzi firms are operating in different manner and taking hard earned money from gullible depositors giving them the impression of lucrative returns

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

// 3 //

¶26

and thereafter the firms vanish, even if the deposit is made in the name of the Company and money trail is not found, as the Petitioners are the Directors in the R.O.C. documents and the custodial interrogation is required in Bhanjanagar P.S. to unearth collection of every evidence, notwithstanding filing of the charge sheet, this Court is of the view that the Petitioners do not deserve to be released on pre-arrest bail.

¶27

Accordingly, the prayer for pre-arrest bail of the Petitioners stands rejected and the ABLAPL is disposed of being dismissed.

¶28

Interim order dated 18^th August, 2021 passed by this Court stands vacated.

¶29

A free copy of this order be handed over to the learned counsel for the State for its communication to the concerned Police Station.

¶30

¶31

(S. Pujahari)
Judge

¶32

Page 3 of 3

Ashutosh Biswal v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashutosh Biswal v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandan Malik Vs State of Odisha

Guruprasad Karna Vs State of Odisha

Nimain Rout @ Tulu Vs State of Odisha

Santilata Swain Vs State of Odisha

Jyostnarani Jena Vs State of Odisha

Niyamatun Bibi Vs State of Odisha