The Orissa High Court rejected the bail plea for the third time to Bengali film producer Srikant Mohhta, who was arrested by CBI in January 2019 for his alleged complicity in a chit fund scam case.
The Applicant, Srikant Mohta was arrested by the CBI for his alleged links with Rose Valley, one of major players in the ponzi scam.
The Mohta, co-founder of Shree Venkatesh Films Pvt Ltd (SVFPL), is accused of embezzling crores of rupees on the pretext of producing films by entering into an agreement with Brand Value Communications Ltd (BVCL), a sister concern of Rose Valley Group.
The Rose Valley Group of Companies collected a huge amount of money from public enticing them with false promises of paying higher rates of interest although Rose Valley was not having any authorization from the Reserve Bank of India or the Securities and Exchange Board of India for carrying out such activities and therefore, the company cheated the public.
The Senior Counsel Kapil Sibal appearing for the applicant cited release of some of the co-accused in the scam for consideration of bail.
The CBI Advocate Mr. Sarthak Nayak appearing for the C.B.I., on the other hand, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and contended that mere long detention period cannot be a ground to release the petitioner on bail as economic offences are required to be visited with a different approach as those are grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole.
The Single judge bench of Justice SK Sahoo said parity cannot be the sole ground for grant of bail. It is one of the grounds for consideration of the question of bail.
“There is no absolute hidebound rule that bail must necessarily be granted to an accused, where another co-accused has been granted bail. It transpires that the case of the petitioner is not identically similar to the co-accused persons who have been bailed out. The grant of bail is not a mechanical act nor can the power of the Court be fettered to act against conscience”, the court said.
The court while rejecting the arguments of the Senior Counsel Kapil Sibal held that there has been no substantial change in circumstances after rejection of the last bail application of the petitioner by the court in January this year and subsequent dismissal of his SLP by the Supreme Court in February. Further investigation of the case is at a crucial stage and a huge number of documents have been seized and statements of witnesses have been collected against the petitioner even after rejection of the last bail application, Justice Sahoo said in his 60-page order.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment
