Orissa High Court
Basanti Mondal vs Republic Of India (Cbi) … Opposite … on 28 January, 2025
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No. 3212 of 2024
Basanti Mondal ... Petitioner
Mr. S.R. Mulia, Advocate
-versus-
Republic of India (CBI) ... Opposite Party
Mr. S. Nayak, Advocate(CBI)
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
ORDER(ORAL)
Order No. 28.01.2025 17. 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 SPE
Case No. 21/2014 corresponding to R.C. No.26/S/2014-
Kol pending in the file of learned Special C.J.M.(CBI),
Bhubaneswar for commission of offences punishable
U/Ss 120-B/420/409 of IPC r/w Sections 4,5 & 6 of
Prize Chits & Money Circulation Schemes Act, on the
allegation of operating illegal money circulation
business through different Company along with other
accused persons alluring depositors to invest money on
the assurance of getting high return and in the process,
cheating the gullible depositors.
3. Heard, Mr. Satya Ranjan Mulia, learned counel
for the Petitioner and Mr. Sarthak Nayak, learned
counsel for the CBI in the matter and perused the
record.
Page 1 of 5
4. It is, however, not disputed that the Petitioner
was arrested and produced before the concerned Court
on 12.05.2018 and since then, she is in custody, but
the trial is yet to be completed. The report furnished by
the learned trial Court reveals about examination of
only 11 witnesses with 166 charge sheeted witnesses
remaining to be examined, but the trial had
commenced w.e.f. 31.01.2019 and thereby, it can be
presumed that a considerable period of time is required
for disposal of the case. Further, it is also not in dispute
that the Petitioner was granted interim bail in IA No.
391 of 2024, but she voluntarily surrendered to the
custody after availing the interim bail. It is of course
objected by learned CBI counsel for release of
Petitioner on bail on the ground that she had
absconded and eluded the investigating agency for five
years and with much difficulty, she was apprehend at
Bombay after near about five years of the registration
of the case, but fact remains that right to speedy trial is
the fundamental right of an accused as guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Of course,
what extent of time would be considered as a delay in
disposal of the case has not been defined precisely in
any statute or in any law, but 6 and ½ years is
definitely a long period for a lady kept in custody on the
assurance of trial and the fact that the examination of
166 charge sheeted witnesses would take considerable
time. Right to speedy trial as guaranteed by our
Constitution cannot be denied to an under trial accused,
Page 2 of 5
who cannot be kept confined in custody for a indefinite
period merely on the expectation of conclusion of trial
some times after, more particularly when it is not
known when the trial would be concluded even after
confining the accused in custody for more than six
years for an offence which prescribes punishment
extendable to life. The right as guaranteed to the
accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India in
a situation like this on the admitted facts of the case
would definitely prevail over and above the restrictions
imposed for grant of bail. This Court, therefore,
considers it that the right to speedy trial in this case
appears to have been infringed for the Petitioner who
has already been detained in custody for more than six
years.
5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstance
and taking into account the long custody of the
Petitioner who is a lady and extending the benefit of
proviso to Sec. 437 of CrPC, this Court without
expressing any view on merits admits the Petitioner to
bail.
6. Hence, the bail application of the Petitioner
stands allowed and she is allowed to go on bail on
furnishing bail bonds 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,
Page 3 of 5
(ii) the petitioner in the course of trial
shall attend the trial Court on each date of
posting without fail unless her 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 for offence U/S.229-A of
IPC in accordance with law,
(iii) the petitioner shall not leave the
territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court
without prior permission till disposal of the
case by intimating her present address of
stay to the concerned Court,
(iv) the Petitioner shall inform the Court
as well as the Investigating Agency as to
her place of residence during the trial by
providing her mobile number(s),
residential address, e-mail, if any, and
other documents in support of proof of
her residence. The Petitioner shall not
change her address of residence without
intimating to the Court and Investigating
Agency,
(v) in case the Petitioner misuses the
liberty of bail and in order to secure their
presence, proclamation U/S.82 of Cr.P.C.
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
her for offence U/S.174-A of the IPC in
accordance with law,
(vi) the Petitioner shall appear before the
Investigating Agency as and when
required and shall cooperate with the
further investigation in the present case,
(vii) the Petitioner shall surrender her
passport, if any, in the Court in seisin of
Page 4 of 5
the case till conclusion of trial, unless she
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, she
shall file an affidavit before the trial Court
indicating the same.
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.
7. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.
8. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per
Rules.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Priyajit
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: PRIYAJIT SAHOO
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Date: 30-Jan-2025 17:42:50
Page 5 of 5