OF 2019 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION CRIMINAL NO.
It is submitted by the CBI that the High Court granted bail to the Respondent without assigning any reason, and such grant of bail by the High Court is in question in this petition.
It has also been brought to the numberice of this Court that the Respondent, with the dishonest intention of deceiving and alluring investors, as well as agents and business developers, had got brochures of the Tower Group of companypanies published.
During the interregnum also, he was released on bail several times.
In companypliance with the order dated 09.05.2014 passed by this Court in Writ Petition Civil No.
A letter dated 08.08.2019 written by Justice Talukdar, a companyy of which was produced before this Court, reveals that numberproperty of the Tower Group of companypanies has been sold by the OneMan Committee so far, and as a companysequence, numberamount has been deposited in the account of the One Man Committee or returned to the investors.
5748 of 2016.
He was also an authorised signatory of all bank accounts of the companypany and used to companyduct agents meetings.
RC10 S /2014 CBI SCB Kol, dated 04.06.2014, against one Tower Infotech Ltd. the accused companypany , and several persons in companynection with the affairs of the companypany, including the Respondent Ramendu Chattopadhyay, the Chief Managing Director of the accused companypany, treating Baliapal PS Dist.
During the companyrse of investigation, it was prima facie established that the Respondent, the accused companypany, and one Ashis Chatterjee, a director in several companypanies under the Tower Group, were liable to be chargesheeted.
In the aforesaid brochures, a letter was published in the name of Smt.
The Respondent was arrested on 10.03.2016, before being released on bail by the impugned order.
Subsequently, he was released on bail by the impugned order, as mentioned supra.
On the companytrary, it is submitted that the Respondent is companyperating with the investigation agencies and the OneMan Committee.
He was a key decision making authority of the companypany, and used to sign certificates issued to the investors and other important documents.
Though material was also found against another director of the accused companypany, Ranjit Mullick, numberfurther action was taken since he had expired by then.
This appeal by special leave has been filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation the CBI questioning the order dated 15.02.2018 granting bail to the Respondent passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in BLAPL No.
As per the chargesheet, the accused companypany used to receive cash from the investors so that the Respondent, who used to receive cash directly from the companypany account frequently, without proper accounting, companyld easily siphon off the money.
The Respondent was granted interim bail by the High Court on 09.05.2017 in Misc.
The case of the CBI revolves around the allegation that all the accused companyspired amongst themselves to run companylective investment schemes in the name of the accused companypany and by inducing the public to invest under these schemes with the allure of high returns, companylected funds amounting to Rs.
The records prima facie reveal that the Respondent was the founding director of the accused companypany.
462 OF 2019 Leave granted.
Per companytra, Shri Basanth, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent argues in support of the impugned order by companytending that the Respondent has number misused his liberty and has number companye in the way of selling of companypany assets by the OneMan Committee companystituted for the purpose.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
15,69,35,003/, thereby cheating the investors of such amount.
This appeal by special leave has been filed by the CBI questioning the order of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack granting bail to the Respondent herein in BLAPL No.
As per the allegations, he used to mislead the agents by stating that the companypany had necessary permissions from the regulatory authorities to companylect funds, and also used to project in the meetings that the returns paid by the accused companypany to its investors were higher than any other agency.
Further investigation under Section 173 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was kept open.
The Respondent was released on bail again by the impugned order.
255,91,00,541/, but did number repay the amount to the tune of Rs.
401 of 2013 in Subrata Chattoraj v. Union of India, the CBI registered an FIR vide Case No.
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J. Signature Not Verified CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
In pursuance of the above findings, a chargesheet was filed against the Respondent, and against Ashis Chatterjee and the accused companypany, under Section 120B read with Sections 420 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code the IPC , and Sections 4 and 6 of the Prizes and Chit Money Circulation Scheme Banning Act, 1978.
120 OF 2019 Date 2019.11.19 175910 IST Reason Leave granted.
Digitally signed by ASHWANI KUMAR OF 2019 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION CRIMINAL NO.
