The petitioner, Suman Chattopadhyay who is a journalist and also happened to be the Director and shareholder of Disha Productions & Multimedia Pvt. Ltd. (DPMPL). As reported, he ceased to be the share-holder and Director of DPMPL in January 2013, and presently he's continuing because the Chief Editor of ‘Ae Samay’, a Bengali newspaper. He was also arrested in another case registered in Odisha against another Ponzi Company, and within connection during an inquiry conducted in his residential premises, some documents were acknowledged to point out his relationship with and diversion of funds from M/s. Saradha Group of Industries to DPMPL, which he earlier materialized to be the Director and share-holder, and consequent misappropriation of an amount of Rs.1.04 Crore.
Ponzi Companies, flourished with many within the Eastern States of India, basically in Odisha, West Bengal, Assam, Tripura, and Bihar, which instigated the general public through different schemes, to deposit/invest money, with false assurance of impressive returns. Being allured by such lucrative assurance, lacs of innocent depositors parted with their hard-earned money with those Ponzi firms, who though at the initial stage paid some returns, afterward after collecting huge amounts of cash from the general public, disappeared from the scene to the dismay and detriment of the depositors.
Mr.Debasish Panda, counsel appearing for the petitioner while urging for the anticipatory bail submitted, inter-alia, that since the petitioner was earlier examined by the Investigating Agency about certain cases of Saradha Group registered at Kolkata, and on those occasions, he wasn't thought necessary or proper to be taken to custody, it might be a futile exercise for the C.B.I. to arrest him about this case which is additionally about Saradha Group.
Mr. Sarthak Nayak, counsel appearing for the C.B.I. while opposing the anticipatory bail to the petitioner urged that Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is important to understand whether the other benefits are received by him from Saradha Group and other Ponzi companies, whether there has been a diversion of cash from Saradha Group to the other influential persons directly or indirectly, whether there have been other patrons of Saradha Group, whether the petitioner has diverted his illicit money to anybody else, etc.
Mr. Nayak further added that being a media person the petitioner is in touch with many influential persons, and there's every chance of his tampering with evidence and influencing material witnesses, and also not cooperating with the investigation.
The single-judge bench of Justice S. Pujahari noted that since during this case the petitioner has been indicted in an economic offense which is of great and therefore the larger angle of conspiracy regarding the patronage of political and other persons within the growth of such Ponzi firms are required to be unearthed. The court while rejecting the bail said that no effective investigation is often made by the police by enlarging the petitioner on pre-arrest bail.