IN THE COURT OF SHRI……..

, PRESIDING OFFICER,
DESIGNATED COURT, OPID ACT, DISTRICT COURT
COMPLEX, AT CUTTACK

BAIL APPLICATION NO. ______ OF 2016

IN
C.T. NO. 17 OF 2015

IN THE MATTER OF:

AJAY REDDY ….
APPLICANT
(IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY
SINCE 07.11.2015)
VERSUS

STATE & ORS. ….

RESPONDENT

U/s: 120-B r/w section 467,

468, 471, 420 and 406 of
IPC r/w Section 4,5 & 6 of
PCMCS Act read with
Section 6 of OPID Act.
FIR No. 102 OF 2015
P.S. – EOW, Bhubaneswar

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 439 OF THE CODE OF

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 ON BEHALF OF THE
APPLCIANT/ ACCUSED MR. AJAY REDDY FOR GRANT OF
REGULAR BAIL

Most Respectfully Sheweth as under:

1. That the present Application has been filed on behalf of

Sh. Ajay Reddy (hereinafter referred to as the
“Applicant”) for seeking regular bail in the
abovementioned case. The Applicant has been in
 continuous incarceration/judicial custody since 07.11.2015
i.e. the date when he was arrested and is presently lodged
in _____ Jail at Cuttack.

2. The Applicant was arrayed as an accused in the present

case along with other Co-accused(s) namely Kunal Tiwari,
Arshad Hussain and Mriganka Sekhar Chakraborty
pursuant to a Complaint filed by one Mr. Subhash
Chandra Pradhan, who was an ex-employee of ADP
Management Limited and Ornate IndiaMultistate Credit
Co-operative Society Limited (hereinafter to be called as
“ADPML” and “OIMSCS”), entrusted with the task of
carrying out the marketing business of the aforesaid
companies in the city of Bhubaneswar for the entire state
of Odisha as per the agreement dated 10.01.2013. Copy
of the Agreement dated 10.01.2013 is annexed herewith
as ANNEXURE-A.

3. On the basis of the said Complaint, a FIR bearing No.

13/2015 was lodged against the above mentioned
Accused(s) on 08.05.2015 under Sections 467/
468/471/420/406/120(B) IPC r/w Sections 4, 5 & 6 of the
Prize Chits & Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act,
1978 (“PCMCS”) and Section 6 of the Odisha Protection
of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act,
2011 (“OPID”).

4. The present case is pending trial before this Hon’ble Court

and is listed for the purpose of ___________ on
________.

5. It is submitted that the present Applicant is under

incarceration for more than one year i.e. since 07.11.2015,
 wherein, the Investigating Agency, have not taken any
steps whatsoever to arrest the other Co-accused(s)
named in the FIR despite having all relevant
details/particulars pertaining to the aforesaid Accused.

6. It is noteworthy to mention that the investigations qua the

Applicant have already been concluded and which
culminated into filing of the aforesaid Charge-sheet
against the present Applicant and hence he is no longer
required for any further investigation qua his role/
involvement in the present case and has already disclosed
all the information/ material available with him with respect
to the present case.

7. It is further pertinent to mention that the investigation at

this stage is only pending qua the other Co-accused who
are still at large and for the purpose of which, the
Investigating Officer has sought the permission of this
Hon’ble Court to file Additional/Supplementary Charge-
sheet thus bringing the proceeding in the present trial to a
standstill.

8. It is further submitted that despite serious allegations of

criminal conspiracy having been raised against the other
Accused(s) by the Investigating Officer in the Charge-
Sheet dated 04.03.2016, no steps have been taken by the
Investigating Officer to produce/arrest the said other Co-
Accused(s) before this Hon’ble Court for reasons best
known to him, thus clearly underlining the fact that the
Applicant is a victim of a botched up investigation being
carried out by misrepresenting facts before this Hon’ble
Court.
9. In view of the foregoing, it is humbly submitted that the
Applicant is entitled to be released on bail in terms of the
fact that he is no longer required for any custodial
interrogation, since the Charge-sheet qua him has already
been filed and further in view of the fact that since
07.11.2015 i.e. the date of his arrest till date, the Applicant
has cooperated with the Investigating Agency in every
manner possible and did not avoid or make himself
unavailable for investigation in any manner whatsoever.

10. The brief facts and circumstances leading to the filing of

the present Application are as follows:

(i) On 08.05.2015 an FIR bearing No. 13 of 2015 was

registered 120-B IPC R/w Sec. 467, 468, 471, 420
and 406 IPC read with Section 4,5, & 6 of PCMCS
Act and Section 6 of the OPID by P.S.:EOW,
Bhubaneswar against three accused persons,
including the Applicant herein.

(ii) The allegation in the present FIR is broadly that one

Mr. Subash Chandra Pradhan invested an amount
of Rs. 60,000/- with one M/s. ADPManagement Ltd.
(hereinafter referred to as “Company”) for a period
of one year with a maturity value of Rs. 67,209/-.

(iii) It is alleged in the FIR that the Company initially

issued a Non-convertible Secured Redeemable
Debenture Certificates and subsequently changed
the name of the Company to Ornate IndiaMulti State
Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd. without informing
the depositors and misappropriated crores of
Rupees by making false assurances to people. It is
 further alleged that the directors and their
associates have cheated and misappropriated
crores of rupees from the Complainant and other
depositors.

(iv) It has been further alleged in the FIR that by

investing the said amount in their personal and
relatives’ profitable business the directors and other
persons related to the Company have earned profits
by misappropriating the money deposited by the
Complainant and other depositors belonging to
different districts in Orissa.

(v) The Investigating Agency after the completion of

preliminary investigation, filed its final report under
Section 173 Cr.P.C. dated 04.03.2016 against the
Applicant which included only the name of the
Applicant out of three FIR named accused persons,
under Sections 120B IPC read with Sections 467,
468, 471, 472, 420 and 406 IPC and Section 4, 5 &
6 of OIDP Act. The Investigating Agency on the
statements of 27 witnesses and have adduced
documents running into more than 1000 pages to
support the final report.

(vi) The substratum of the case is that the Applicant

herein in collusion with other FIR named persons
collected public deposits which were utilized for their
own benefits, neither had they repaid the interest
amount on their deposit nor the maturity amount and
they cheated the Complainant as well as other
depositors. It has been further alleged that the
Applicant had submitted the financial documents to
 the ROC, Kolkata and central Co-operative Society,
New Delhi by forging the signatures of the
Chartered Accountant Sh. Udaya Shankar Saha and
using the counterfeit seal of the Chartered
Accountant Firm (M/s. A. Basu & Co.).

(vii) The Applicant was arrested on 07.11.2015 at

Kolkata and the Ld. Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Alipur, Kolkata sent the Applicant to
transit remand after which he was produced before
the Ld. PO, DC, OPID, Cuttack wherein he was
remanded to Judicial Custody till 21.11.2015.
Further on 16.11.2015 on the Application of the
Investigating Agency the Ld. Special Judge
remanded the Accused to two days police custody
wherein the Applicant fully co-operated with the
Investigating Agency.

(viii) That the Applicant on 09.11.2015 moved an

Application seeking release on bail under Section
437 Cr.P.C., before the Ld. Special Judge, i.e. PO,
DC, OPID, Cuttack. The same was put up for date
fixed i.e. on 21.11.2015.

(ix) That on 07.12.2015 the Ld. Special Judge i.e. PO,

DC, OPID, Cuttack rejected the bail application of
the Applicant stating that there is a chance of the
Applicant/Accused absconding and tampering being
a resident of Kolkata, that he deserves no leniency
and hence was arrested. The copy of the order
dated 07.12.2015 passed by this Hon’ble Court is
annexed herein and marked as ANNEXURE-B.
 (x) That on 04.03.2016 the investigating agency filed a
Preliminary Chargesheet under Section 173 of CrPC
whereby the investigating agency adduced a list of
27 witnesses and documents running in more than
1000 pages. It is quite clear that the Trial will take a
substantial time to conclude.

GROUNDS

11. That the Applicant prefers the present Application on the

following among other grounds taken without prejudice to
each other:

(i) That the Applicant has been in Judicial Custody

since 07.11.2015, i.e. for over one year. There is no
useful purpose that would be served with the
incarceration of the Applicant, especially since the
trial has been at a standstill for a long time. It is
submitted that denial of liberty can be neither
punitive nor preventive, and there is no justification
for suspending the right to liberty of the Applicant,
especially when he is neither a threat to the
investigation nor to the judicial process.

(ii) That the Applicant has been named as an accused

in the instant case as far back as on 08.05.2015 and
during this time till his arrest there has never been
any complaint by the investigating Agency of the
Applicant influencing any witnesses, tampering with
any evidence, or in any other manner sullying the
investigation / Trial Process. The course of
 investigation has been and shall remain immune
from any apprehension of influence at the hands of
the Applicant. There is no basis for assuming that
he would in any way influence the process of trial
and to deny him bail on such apprehension would
be misplaced.

(iii) That the Applicant has been named as an accused

in the instant case as far back as on 08.05.2015.
The Applicant did not, in the interregnum, make
himself scarce or become unavailable to the
investigating Agency or avoid the investigation
process in any manner whatsoever. In fact the
Applicant joined investigation repeatedly and
provided all cooperation to the investigating Agency.
The conduct of the Applicant, in the course of
investigation is not such so as to create any doubt
that he would not be available to face trial before the
Learned Trial Court.

(iv) It is submitted that the present Applicant is under

incarceration for more than one year i.e. since
07.11.2015, wherein, the Investigating Agency, have
not taken any steps whatsoever to arrest the other
Co-accused(s) named in the FIR despite having all
relevant details/particulars pertaining to the
aforesaid Accused.

(v) It is noteworthy to mention that the investigations

qua the Applicant have already been concluded and
which culminated into filing of the aforesaid Charge-
sheet against the present Applicant and hence he is
no longer required for any further investigation qua
 his role/ involvement in the present case and has
already disclosed all the information/ material
available with him with respect to the present case.

(vi) It is further pertinent to mention that the

investigation at this stage is only pending qua the
other Co-accused who are still at large and for the
purpose of which, the Investigating Officer has
sought the permission of this Hon’ble Court to file
Additional/Supplementary Charge-sheet thus
bringing the proceeding in the present trial to a
standstill.

(vii) It is pertinent to note that the Applicant does not

hold any shares in the Company. Furthermore, the
investigating agency are hand in gloves with the
other co-accused and are not arresting them even
after the investigating agency have been provided
with all the details including the new mobile
numbers.

(viii) That this Hon’ble Court must appreciate that the

Applicant is no longer required for any investigation
purpose and in any case the Applicant has co-
operated with the investigation in the past and
undertakes to join the investigation if and when so
required.

(ix) That the Applicant is entitled to the benefit of the

principles laid down and guidelines issued by the
said decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is
submitted that the Applicant is not required for any
custodial interrogation any further.
(x) That the procedure established by law does not
mandate the whittling down of the presumption of
innocence or the punitive incarceration of undertrial
accused persons.

(xi) That the Applicant was appointed as the Managing

Director of the Company for a period of 5 years vide
an agreement between the Company and the
Applicant and was in no manner attached to the
Company in any promotional capacity whatsoever.
This appointment was done formally and was duly
intimated to the Registrar of Companies (ROC). It is
also pertinent to note herein that the copies of the
said agreement and a copy of the board resolution
approving his appointment were duly submitted to
ROC.

(xii) That the Applicant had received an appointment

letter as “Employee Managing Director” from the
Company. Furthermore, the Applicant was made a
signatory in the bank accounts for which he was
instructed by the Company vide letter dated
01.01.2011.

(xiii) That the Applicant had resigned as the Managing

Director of the Company on 21.12.2013 i.e. much
prior to the filing of the present FIR and much before
the maturity of Complainant’s bond. It is pertinent to
mention herein that the resignation of the Applicant
was duly accepted by the Chairman of the
Company.
(xiv) That the Applicant is about 43 years, sick and infirm
person and who has been suffering from various
serious ailments including High blood pressure,
diabetes and has recently suffered the problem of
slip disc and for which he was referred to the Jail
Hospital, Cuttack for treatment and hence as such
the Applicant is entitled for the protection of 1st
proviso of Sub Section (1) of Section 437 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, which provides
for enlargement to a women, old, sick, infirm and a
child below sixteen years on bail.

(xv) That the Applicant has no criminal antecedents and

has the utmost respect for the law.

(xvi) That the Applicant has been falsely implicated in the

present matter and has a good case on merits.
Consequently, it is submitted that the present
Applicant ought not to be detained during the
pendency of the trial.

(xvii) That the Applicant is innocent of all wrongdoings

and has been falsely implicated. Despite the
allegations of the investigating Agency, the
Applicant is entitled to a presumption of innocence
and securing his liberty is one such manifestation of
the said presumption.

(xviii) That Hon’ble Court ought to consider that no

material has been placed in the present case to
show the recovery of any such sums of money, or
the linkage between the said funds and any property
and any asset of the Applicant and as such, the said
 allegation is clearly a convenient tool to harass and
falsely implicate the Applicant herein. It is submitted
that no amount of the Company was ever
transferred to any account of the Applicant except
the agreed salary which also was not received by
the Applicant from June 2013 till his resignation.

(xix) It is a settled position of law held in plethora of

cases by the Hon’ble Apex court that for
establishing the offence of cheating, the
Complainant is required to show that at the time of
making the promise/representation the Accused had
a fraudulent or dishonest intention. Mere
subsequent failure to keep promise does not
amount to offence of cheating. Furthermore, the
mere mention of expression “cheating” in the
Complaint/FIR is of no consequence when there is
no mention/averment of deceit, cheating or
fraudulent intention of the accused at the time of
entering into the transaction.

(xx) It is further pertinent to mention herein that during

the course of the investigation no asset/ immovable
property in the name of the Applicant have been
seized by the Police. Furthermore, the bank balance
of the Applicant as on date of seizure of the bank
account is only Rs.600/- which makes it evidently
clear that there is no money trail between the
alleged offence and the Applicant.

(xxi) That from the bare reading of the Chargesheet it is

evidently clear that the Applicant herein has been
falsely implicated in the present case. The allegation
 as per first page of the Chargesheet is that the
Applicant neither repaid the interest amount nor the
maturity amount and thereby cheated the
Complainant as well as other thousand of
depositors. Whereas, the second page of the
Chargesheet reads that the directors of the
Company at the beginning started paying the
monthly interest to its investors and maintained the
trust to invest more along with their kith and kin.

(xxii) That after filing of the first bail application before this
Hon’ble Court which was dismissed on 07.12.2015,
no other bail application has been moved by the
Applicant/Accused till the filing of the present
application.

(xxiii) Furthermore, from the date of rejection of the bail of

the Applicant by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated
07.12.2015 and filing of the Charge-sheet dated
04.03.2016 no substantial proceeding have taken
place and the trial is at stand still, it is submitted that
due to this material change in circumstances the
Trial will continue for a substantial period of time.
The Applicant should be granted bail during this
undertrial period.

(xxiv) It is submitted that the right to bail is not to be

denied merely because of the sentiments of the
community against the accused. The primary
purposes of bail in a criminal case are to relieve the
accused of imprisonment, to relieve the State of the
burden of keeping him, pending the trial, and at the
same time, to keep the accused constructively in the
 custody of the Court, whether before or after
conviction, to assure that he will submit to the
jurisdiction of the Court and be in attendance
thereon whenever his presence is required.

(xxv) For that the applicant is entitled to be released on

Bail in terms of the Law declared by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India, and various High Courts,
including:

(i) Kanimozhi Karunanthithi v. CBI,

Bail Application No. 1567/2011 dt.

28.11.2011(Hon’ble High Court of Delhi)

(ii) Suresh Kalmadi v. CBI,

Bail Application No. 1692 of 2011 dt.

19.1.2012(Hon’ble High Court of Delhi)

(iii) Sanjay Chandra v. CBI,

2012 (1) SCC 40

A Compilation of the various judgments being relied upon

is being handed over.

(xxvi) That the Applicant is a law abiding citizen of India

and is a well respected member of the community
and has deep roots in society and is not a flight risk.
The family of the Applicant stays in
______________. The Applicant is an income tax
payee and he has no reason or propensity to flee
from justice. The Applicant is not a previous convict
and has no past record of being involved in any
criminal proceedings.
 (xxvii) That any apprehension of the Investigating Agency
can be met by imposing suitable conditions whilst
granting bail to the Applicant, which he undertakes
to comply with.

12. That accordingly, it is prayed that in the light of the facts

and circumstances mentioned hereinabove this Hon’ble
Court may be pleased to grant Bail to the Applicant in the
present case.

13. That the Applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the
liberty of the bail granted by this Hon’ble Court. This
Hon’ble Court may consider that the Applicant was not
arrested from 08.05.2015 till 07.11.2015. Accordingly, it
can be inferred that: (a) it was the understanding of the
Investigative Agency that the Applicant would not tamper
with evidence, influence witnesses or in any way sully the
Investigation Process; (b) the accused person’s custodial
interrogation was not required to complete the
investigation and (c) it was the understanding of the
Investigative Agency that the accused would not flee from
justice.

14. That the Applicant has absolutely clean antecedent to his

credit and belongs to a respectable family. There is no
likelihood of the Applicant evading the process of law or
fleeing from justice. The Applicant undertakes to abide by
all such terms and conditions as this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit and proper to impose under the facts and
circumstances of the present case.

15. That the instant Application is being moved bonafide and

may kindly be allowed in the interests of justice.
 PRAYER

Wherefore, in light of the facts and circumstances aforementioned, it is

humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

a) Pass an Order releasing the Applicant on Bail in the

present case;

b) Pass such order(s) as this Hon’ble court may deem fit and
proper in the interest of Justice.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE APPLICANT IN DUTY

BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.

APPLICANT
(In JC)

Through:

S & Company Law Firm

Advocates
Golf Apartments
Singh Park
New Delhi – 110 003
Cuttack
Dated: