A case was filed according to an order of commitment passed in R.C. under Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA Act, by the C.J.M. Bhubaneswar. Being apprehensive of his arrest by the C.B.I. in connection with PMLA Case of the Special Court under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA Act”), Bhubaneswar, and present submission under Section 438 of CrPC, a request was filed requesting pre-arrest bail.
Counsel appearing for the petitioner Mr. Debasish Panda submitted that the entire transaction of the petitioner with Saradha Group was only a business dealing having no element of criminality, and the C.B.I. has all the documents related to such business transaction. It was further contended that on previous occasions, the petitioner had shown his willingness to cooperate with the investigation, and will also in future he will make himself available before the C.B.I. for interrogation, if necessary, and there is no necessity of his being taken to custody.
Counsel appearing for the CBI Mr. Sarthak Nayak submitted that since the Supreme Court of India has explicitly directed the C.B.I. to investigate greater conspiracy, the money trail, roles of regulators, etc., the arrest and custodial interrogation of the petitioner by the C.B.I. in the present case involving Saradha Group is essential. It is apparent on the record that the petitioner by misusing his media company and adopting an arm-twisting technique against some selective companies dealing with Ponzi schemes, extracted crores of rupee which belonged to gullible depositors.
The Court observed that the petitioner has been indicted in an economic offense that is of serious nature. The larger angle of conspiracy concerning support of political and other persons in the progress of such Ponzi firms is required to be unearthed. Hence, the Court held that no effective investigation can be made by the police by enlarging the petitioner on pre-arrest bail, even if he is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation by remaining on pre-arrest bail.