TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 1481
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2011 (hereafter 'O.P.I.D. Act, 2011'). The petitioner Jibandeep Rout @ Jibandip Rout in BLAPL No.3331 of 2017 has filed the application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking for bail in the aforesaid case as his prayer for bail was turned down vide order dated 01.05.2017 by the said Court. Since in both the cases, the prayer for bail has been made, with the consent of the respective parties, the matters were heard analogously and disposed of by this common order. 2. One Narayan Chandra Malla lodged the first information report before the Superintendent of Police, Kendrapara which was forwarded to Inspector in-charge of Nikirai Police Station and accordingly, on 14.01.2017 the Inspector in-charge of Nikirai Police Station registered Nikirai P.S. Case No.12 of 2017 under sections 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 4, 5 and 6 of the P.C.M.C.S.B. Act, 1978 and section 6 of O.P.I.D. Act, 2011. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that the appellants Smt. Bhagyabati Rout and Duryodhan Bhuyan along with one Laxmipriya Rout arrived at the house of the informant and convinced him to invest money in SIDDHA MAHAPURUSH MONEY SOCIETY, Mangalpur so that he can get 3% monthly interest....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s other actions were to be completed and stipulated period of 120 days was going to completed on 15.05.2017. 4. Mr. Himanshu Sekhar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the appellants Smt. Bhagyabati Rout and Duryodhan Bhuyan contended that there are all total four cases against the appellants. In Nikirai P.S. Case No.46 of 2015, though the F.I.R. was not registered against the appellants but during course of investigation, the appellants were implicated as accused and in that case, they were taken into custody and released on bail and in the said case, investigation is under progress. In Nikirai P.S. Case No.53 of 2015, though the F.I.R. was not registered against the appellants but during course of investigation, the appellants were implicated as accused and in that case, the appellants have been granted anticipatory bail. In Nikirai P.S. Case No.73 of 2016, neither the F.I.R. was registered against the appellants nor the first charge sheet was submitted against the appellants and in that case the further investigation is under progress and the appellants have been granted anticipatory bail. It is further contended that in the present case i.e., Nikirai P.S. Case No.12 of 201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Jibandip Rout contended that the petitioner is neither the Director of SIDDHA MAHAPURUSH MONEY SOCIETY, Mangalpur nor he has accepted any deposit from any of the depositors nor there is no allegation that he has allured any of the depositors to deposit money. It is further contended that the petitioner was taken into custody in connection with Nikirai P.S. Case Nos. 46 of 2015 and 53 of 2015 and released on bail and he has been granted anticipatory bail in Nikirai P.S. Case No.73 of 2016 and the allegations in all the cases are similar in nature. He further submitted that none of the depositors whose statements are available in the case diary implicate the petitioner to have accepted any money from them and therefore, taking into account the period of detention of the petitioner in jail custody since 20.04.2017, the bail application may be favourably considered. Mr. Bibekananda Bhuyan, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State submitted that while submitting chargeshhet in Nikirai P.S. Case No.12 of 2017, the I.O. submitted case diary along with the statements of the informant as well as one Nilakantha Panda and statements of other witnesses like Sulochana Malli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sitors to deposit money in the society is apparent. He further submitted that the applicants have directly accepted deposits not only from the informant but also from others which would be clear from the statements of Purusottam Sahoo, Kanakalata Bhanja, Jyostnarani Jena, Biswaranjan Das, Pravat Kumar Sahoo, Ranjan Kumar Sahoo and Sridhar Thatoi. Learned counsel further submitted that in Nikirai P.S. Case No.73 of 2016, the aforesaid witnesses were examined and they implicated the applicants. It is further contended that since the applicants are directly connected with the affairs of the society and they have persuaded the depositors to deposit the money in the society and the appellants after taking loan to tune of Rs.16,10,915/- are not repaying the same, the society became sick and as many as 641 depositors who have deposited their hard-earned money lost their money. The learned counsel relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy -Vrs.- C.B.I. reported in (2013) 55 Orissa Criminal Reports (SC) 825 and Nimmagadda Prasad -Vrs.- C.B.I. reported in (2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases 466 and contended that the bail applicants are not entitl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ement at all but if they choose to record any statement as important or necessary, they are not to do so in a boiled form but separately under each such person so that the defence may use it in accordance with section 162 of Cr.P.C. The statement recorded should not be in the indirect form of speech and it should be recorded in the first person of the whole of the account a witness gives. Failure to perform the duty enjoined by the law constitutes a flagrant attempt to circumvent the law and thereby to defeat the right which the law bestows on the accused under section 162 of Cr.P.C. Rule 162 (a) of Orissa Police Rules indicates the guidelines for examination of witnesses which also states that the statement of each witness shall be recorded separately. Rule 164 of the Orissa Police Rules indicates that in all cognizable offences investigated, the proceedings subsequent to the recording of the information and the dispatch of the information report must be recorded in a special diary called the 'case diary' in P.M. Form No.30 mentioning particulars required by section 172 Cr.P.C. The main heads of information received from witness shall be recorded very briefly in narrative form, to....