1

NON­REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1711     OF 2019

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 120 OF 2019)

Central Bureau of Investigation ...Appellant  

Versus

Ramendu Chattopadhyay …Respondent

WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  1712    OF 2019

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 462 OF 2019)

Republic of India (C.B.I.) …Appellant  Versus

Ashis Chatterjee  …Respondent

J U D G M E N T

MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.      OF 2019  (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 120 OF 2019)

 Leave granted.

2

2. 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. 5748 of 2016.

3. In compliance  with the order dated 09.05.2014 passed by this

Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 401 of 2013 in  Subrata Chattoraj  v.

Union of India, the CBI registered an FIR vide Case No. RC­10(S)/2014­

CBI/SCB/Kol, dated 04.06.2014, against one Tower Infotech Ltd. (“the

accused company”), and several persons in connection with the affairs of

the company, including the Respondent Ramendu Chattopadhyay, the

Chief Managing Director of the accused company, treating Baliapal PS

(Dist. Balasore, Orissa) Case No. 85/2013 dated 15.05.2013 as the base

FIR.  The  case  of the  CBI revolves  around  the  allegation that  all the

accused conspired amongst themselves to run collective investment

schemes in the  name of the  accused  company;  and by inducing the

public to invest under these schemes with the allure of high returns,

collected funds amounting to Rs. 255,91,00,541/­, but did not repay the

amount to the tune of Rs. 15,69,35,003/­, thereby cheating the investors

of such amount. During the course of investigation, it was prima facie

established that the Respondent, the accused company, and one Ashis

3

Chatterjee, a director in several companies under the Tower Group, were

liable to be chargesheeted. Though material was also found against

another director of the accused company,  Ranjit  Mullick,  no further

action was taken since he had expired by  then. In pursuance of the

above findings, a chargesheet  was filed  against the  Respondent,  and

against Ashis Chatterjee and the accused company, 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. Further investigation under Section 173(8) of the

Code of Criminal Procedure was kept open. The Respondent was arrested

on 10.03.2016, before  being released on bail  by  the  impugned order.

During the interregnum also, he was released on bail several times.

4. 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.  Per contra, Shri Basanth,

learned  Senior  Counsel for the  Respondent  argues in support  of the

impugned order by contending that the Respondent has not misused his

liberty and has not come in the way of selling of company assets by the

One­Man Committee constituted for the purpose. On the contrary, it is

submitted that the Respondent is cooperating with the investigation

4

agencies and the One­Man Committee.

5. The records prima facie reveal that the Respondent was the

founding director of the accused company. He was a key decision­

making authority of the company, and used to sign certificates issued to

the investors and other important documents. He was also an authorised

signatory  of  all  bank accounts  of the  company  and used to  conduct

agents’ meetings. As per the allegations, he used to mislead the agents

by stating that the company had necessary permissions from the

regulatory authorities to collect funds, and also used to project in the

meetings that the returns paid by the accused company to its investors

were higher than any other agency. As per the chargesheet, the accused

company used to receive cash from the investors so that the Respondent,

who used to receive cash directly from the company account frequently,

without proper accounting, could easily siphon off the money.

6. The Respondent  was granted interim bail  by the  High Court  on

09.05.2017 in Misc. Case No. 738 of 2017 for three months, inter alia for

the purpose of his co­operation with the authorities in liquidating the

assets of the company for repaying the investors. The aforementioned

period of interim bail was extended from time to time by the High Court,

5

i.e.  on 13.09.2017 upto 25.10.2017,  on 25.10.2017 upto 09.11.2017,

and on 27.11.2017 upto 04.12.2017. Subsequently, he was released on

bail by the impugned order, as mentioned supra. It has been brought to

the  notice of this  Court  by the  CBI that  during the said  periods of

availing bail, not a single property of the accused company could be sold,

and the very purpose of his availing interim bail was frustrated, though a

One­Man Committee headed by a retired Judge of the High Court,

namely, Justice S.P. Talukdar, was appointed for this purpose. A letter

dated  08.08.2019  written  by  Justice  Talukdar, a copy of  which  was

produced before this Court, reveals that no property of the Tower Group

of companies has been sold by the One­Man Committee so far, and as a

consequence, no amount has been deposited in the account of the One­

Man Committee or returned to the investors.

7. It has also been brought to the notice 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 companies published. In the aforesaid brochures,

a letter was published in the name of Smt. Sheela Bhide, IAS, Chairman

and  Managing  Director, India  Trade  Promotion  Organisation.  On the

basis of this purported letter, it prima facie appears that the accused

6

tried to falsely impress upon the public that the accused company was

doing lawful business and also gaining huge profits.   Though Smt.

Sheela Bhide was also named as an accused in the FIR, during

investigation, she denied having issued this letter.

8. This Court is conscious of the need to view such economic offences

having a deep­rooted conspiracy and involving a huge loss of investors’

money seriously. Though further investigation is going on, as of now, the

investigation  discloses that the  Respondent  played  a  key role in the

promotion of the chit fund scam described supra,  thereby cheating a

large number of  innocent depositors and misappropriating their hard­

earned money.

9. We are of the prima facie view that if the Respondent continues on

bail, there is little chance of realising any amount by selling the

properties of the Tower Group of companies, since he may use unlawful

tactics to keep prospective buyers away. Moreover, it is relevant to note

that the investigating agency has not yet assessed the exact total amount

invested by the people of Orissa in the accused company, so as to find

out the specific liability of the company in that regard. However,  it  is

argued by both  the Counsel that the  amount may be about  Rs.  350

7

Crores.  Be that as it may, having regard to the material on record, and

since a huge amount of money belonging to investors has been siphoned

off, as well as for the aforesaid reasons, the High Court, in our

considered opinion, should not have released the Respondent on bail.      

11. Consequently, the impugned order granting interim bail to the

Respondent stands set aside.  His bail bonds are cancelled.

12. The appeal is allowed accordingly.  

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.      OF 2019 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 462 OF 2019)

Leave granted.  

2. 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. 1451 of 2017.

3. Since the facts  emerging in this  appeal  are the  same as in the

criminal appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 120 of 2019, they have not

been referred to again for the sake of brevity.

4. It is submitted by the CBI as regards the role of the Respondent

8

that he was a director in various companies under the Tower Group, and

was also a key decision­making authority therein. It is alleged that the

accused company used to receive cash so that the directors, including

the Respondent, could easily siphon off the money for their personal use,

through their personal accounts. The Respondent was arrested on

10.03.2016 and was granted interim bail by the High Court vide order

dated 17.08.2017  in Misc.  Case No.  947 of  2017, for the purpose of

settling disputes with the investors of M/s Tower Infotech Ltd. His

interim bail  was extended  on  15.09.2017  upto  25.10.2017  as  a last

opportunity, but on 25.10.2017 his bail was further extended upto

09.11.2017. The Respondent was released on bail again by the impugned

order. It is submitted that no company asset could be sold by the One­

Man Committee consisting of Justice S.P. Talukdar with the assistance

of the Respondent, similar to the situation  in S.L.P.  (Crl.)  No.  120 of

2019. It has also been brought to our notice that the Respondent has not

been attending meetings called by Justice Talukdar, to show that the

Respondent has not been cooperating with the One­Man Committee

constituted for liquidating the properties of the company to pay off the

money to  investors.  Even  in this case,  we are of the view that if the

Respondent is released on bail, he may obstruct efforts to liquidate the

properties of the Tower Group.

9

5. Having regard to the material on record and since large amounts of

money belonging to innocent investors have been siphoned off, as well as

for  the aforesaid reasons, the High Court, in our considered opinion,

should not have released the Respondent on bail.

6. Consequently, the impugned order granting interim bail to the

Respondent stands set aside.  His bail bonds are cancelled.

7. The appeal is allowed accordingly.  

…..…………................................J.  (MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR)

….…………………………...............J.             (SANJIV KHANNA)

New Delhi; November 19, 2019