IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.2349 of 2021 Ranvajay Singh Baghel @ Ranvijoy Singh Baghel @ Ranvijoy Singh Baghal … Petitioner Mr. B.C. Mohanty, Advocate -versus- Republic of India … Opposite Party Mr. S. Nayak, Advocate(CBI) CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER(ORAL) 03.03.2025 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 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 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 for 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. 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