Orissa High Court
Ranvajay Singh Baghel @ vs Republic Of India … Opposite Party on 3 March, 2025
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.2349 of 2021
Ranvajay Singh Baghel @ ... Petitioner
Ranvijoy Singh Baghel @
Ranvijoy Singh Baghal
Mr. B.C. Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
Republic of India ... Opposite Party
Mr. S. Nayak, Advocate(CBI)
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
ORDER(ORAL)
03.03.2025
Order No.
19. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).
2. This is a bail application U/S.439 of CrPC by
the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with R.C
Case N0.33/S/2OI4 corresponding to SPE No. 28 of
2014 pending in the file of learned Special C.J.M
(CBI), Bhubaneswar, for commission of offences
punishable under Sections 120-B/420/409 IPC, read
with Sections 4/5/6 of Prize Chits and Money
Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978.
3. The main allegation against the Petitioner is
that he being one of the directors of Sai Prakash
Property Development Ltd. (SPPDL) along with others
launched different investment schemes and collected
huge amount of money from public illegally by
alluring them with promise of high returns within a
short span of time and thereby, ultimately cheating
Page 1 of 5
the gullible depositors by not returning the assured
sum.
4. Heard, Mr. Biswa Chandan Mohanty, learned
counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.Sarthak Nayak,
learned counsel for the CBI and perused the record.
5. It is found from the report of the learned trial
Court that the present Petitioner has been produced
in the Court on 31.01.2020 and since then, he is
inside custody, but only 08 out of 203 charge sheeted
witnesses have been examined till today. However,
one Puspendra Singh Baghel, who is stated to be the
principal accused in this case has been convicted on
his pleading guilty for himself and the company and
he is accordingly awarded with maximum substantive
sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment of 5 years. It is,
therefore, not in dispute that the present Petitioner
having already been detained in custody for more
than 5 years, hypothetically he is also liable to same
sentence, if the case results in the conviction of the
Petitioner. Right to speedy trial is any way is the
fundamental right of an accused, but detaining a
person in custody for more than five years in a case,
where the principal accused has been awarded with
maximum substantive sentence of RI for five years is
an infringement to right to speedy trial of the said
person.
6. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstance together with the developments that
Page 2 of 5
has taken place in the meanwhile and after having
considered the rival submissions and taking into
account the long custody of the Petitioner without
proper progress in the trial and there being
uncertainty in disposal of the case in near future
keeping in view the fact that only 08 out of 203
charge sheeted witnesses have been examined till
today, this court without expressing any view on
merits admits the Petitioner to bail notwithstanding to
the serious objection as raised by Mr. S. Nayak,
learned counsel for the CBI.
7. Hence, the bail application of the petitioner
stands allowed and the petitioner is allowed to go on
bail on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of
Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) only with two
solvent sureties each for the like amount to the
satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin of the case,
on such terms and conditions as deem fit and proper
by it with following conditions:-
(i) the petitioner shall not commit any
offence while on bail,
(ii) the petitioner in the course of trial
shall attend the trial Court on each date
of posting without fail unless his
attendance is dispensed with. In case
the Petitioner fails without sufficient
cause to appear in the Court in
accordance with the terms of the
bail, the learned trial Court may
proceed against the Petitioner forPage 3 of 5
offence U/S.269 of BNS,2023 in
accordance with law,
(iii) the Petitioner shall inform the Court
as well as the Investigating Agency as to
his place of residence during the trial by
providing his mobile number(s),
residential address, e-mail, if any, and
other documents in support of proof of
his residence. The Petitioner shall not
change his address of residence without
intimating to the Court and Investigating
Agency,
(iv) in case the Petitioner misuses the
liberty of bail and in order to secure his
presence, proclamation U/S.84 of BNSS,
2023 is issued and the Petitioner fails to
appear before the Court on the date fixed
in such proclamation, then, the learned
trial Court is at liberty to initiate
proceeding against him for offence
U/S.209 of BNS, 2023 in accordance with
law,
(v) the Petitioner shall appear before the
Investigating Agency as and when
required and shall cooperate with the
further investigation in the present case,
(vi) the Petitioner shall surrender his
passport, if any, in the Court in seisin of
the case till conclusion of trial, unless he
is permitted to take back such passport
to use for specific purpose during the
pendency of the case and in case, the
petitioner is not having any passport, he
shall file an affidavit before the trial Court
indicating the same.
Page 4 of 5
It is clarified that the Court in seisin of the
case will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the
petitioner without further reference to this Court, if
any of the above conditions are violated or a case for
cancellation of bail is otherwise made out. In the
wake of aforesaid, the subsequent involvement of the
petitioner in future for grave/similar offence on prima
facie accusations may be treated as a ground for
cancellation of bail in this case.
8. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.
9. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as
per Rules.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Jina/Sisira
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: JINA DIGAL
Reason: Authentication Page 5 of 5
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 04-Mar-2025 20:40:49
[ad_1]
Source link