Page 1

1

NON-REPORTABLE

          IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  240   OF 2017 (ARISING OUT OF S.L.P (CRIMINAL) NO.7899 OF 2016  )

MANORANJANA SINH @ GUPTA     .…APPELLANT

VERSUS

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION          ....RESPONDENT

O R D E R  

   Leave granted.

2.    The appellant, a charge-sheeted accused in judicial custody

in connection with the infamous “Chit Fund Scam” involving the

Saradha  Group of  Companies  (for  short  “Saradha Group”)  has

impeached the rejection of her prayer for bail by the judgment and

order  impugned  hereinabove  and   seeks  her  release   pending

further  investigation  by  the  Central  Bureau  of  Investigation

(hereafter also referred as “ the CBI”) into the said Ponzi scheme.

3.   We have heard   Mr. A. Sharan, learned senior counsel  for

Page 2

2

the  appellant  and  Mr.  K.  Raghavacharyulu,  Special  Public

Prosecutor for the respondent.

4.   As the preface to this investigation had been laid by this

Court in its verdict in  Subroto Chattoraj vs. Union of India &

Ors. (2014) 8 SCC 768, allusion thereto is indispensable.   This

Court therein was seized with the issue of transfer of several cases

registered in connection with the above scam and registered in

different police stations in the State of Bengal and Odisha  from

the State  police  agency to the CBI.   In traversing the recorded

facts,  this  Court  took  note,  inter  alia, of  the  imputed  modus

operandi of the persons and the entities allegedly involved in the

illicit  operations  to  allure  unsuspecting  depositors  to  make

investments  in  the  scheme with  the  promise  of  awarding  them

with attractive  rewards and returns,  which was never  intended

and thereby swindle the gullible members of the public belonging

to the  middle class, lower middle class and the poorer sections of

the society.   The interim report(s),  taken note of  by this Court,

amongst others disclosed violation of the Securities and Exchange

Board of India Act, 1992, The Companies Act, 1956, The Reserve

Page 3

3

Bank of India, 1934 and The Income Tax Act, 1961 and revealed

as well  fraudulent certification, non-compliance with accounting

standards, material  misstatements of  facts and gross-negligence

on the part of statutory auditors and  divulged that the estimated

collection made by the  Saradha Group was of several thousand

crores.  The exercise undertaken by the Commission of Inquiry

appointed  by  the  Government  of  West  Bengal,  which  received

nearly  18  lakh complaints  and claim petitions  was  also  noted.

Involvement of high dignitaries did not miss the attention of this

Court as well.  This Court noted with concern too, the failure of

the Regulators like SEBI,  Authorities  under  the  Companies  Act

and the Reserve Bank of India.  It was recorded that the scam had

spread its roots in the States of West Bengal, Tripura, Assam and

Odisha  and  had  by  then  devoured   Rs.10,000  crores

approximately  from  the  public  in  general  specially  the  weaker

sections of  the society,  having fallen prey to the temptations of

handsome returns, extended by the companies involved.  That the

collection of such huge amounts from the depositors was neither

legally permissible nor were such collections/deposits invested in

any meaningful business activity to generate the high returns as

Page 4

4

promised  to  the  depositors  was  noted.   Having  regard  to  the

gravity of the situation and the inter-state ramifications of such

notorious venture,  this Court acceded to the prayer for transfer of

investigation  from  the  State  Police  to  the  CBI.   This  Court

underlined  in  the  conspectus  of  the  attendant  facts  that  the

investigation ought to be undertaken in particular to unearth the

larger  conspiracy  angle  and  the  money  trail  which  had  since

remained unexplored.

5.    Pursuant to the above decision, FIR in RC-04/S-2014-(SIT)

Kolkata  was registered by the CBI, Special Crime Branch, SIT,

Kolkata. In course of the investigation that followed, charge-sheets

have  been  submitted  on  17.11.2014,  18.02.2015,  17.04.2015,

14.08.2015 and 3.12.2015  under Sections 120B, 420, 409 IPC

and  Sections  4  &  6  of  the  Prize  Chits  and  Money  Circulation

(Banning) Act, 1978 against various accused persons including in

particular   Sudipta Sen of  M/s Saradha Reality  India Ltd.  and

three other companies namely; M/s Saradha Tours and Travels

(P.)  Ltd.,  M/s Saradha Garden Resorts and Hotels (P.)  Ltd. and

M/s Saradha Housing (P.) Ltd. involved principally in the raising

Page 5

5

of funds from the public under different investment schemes.

6.    In the said process, the appellant herein was arrested on

07.10.2015  and  was  remanded  to  the  police  custody  upto

13.10.2015.  Meanwhile, however the appellant having complained

of chest pain and attendant complications, and on medical advice

was shifted to Government Hospital,  S.S.K.M.  Hospital,  Kolkata

and since then, for various ailments, as conveyed by her, she had

remained in different hospitals from time to time as on date.

7.   Eventually  the 5th supplementary charge-sheet  under  the

aforementioned  Sections  of  law  has  also  been  laid  against  the

appellant,  Sudipta  Sen  and  Santanu  Gosh  and  M/s  Global

Automobiles  Ltd.  on  4.1.2016.    As  the  forwarding  report  in

connection  therewith  would  disclose,  investigation  is  still

continuing,  under  Section  173(8)  of  Cr.P.C.  The  charge-sheet

reveals  the  accusation  that  Sudipta  Sen  and  others  as  named

therein together with M/s Saradha Reality India Ltd. in pursuance

of criminal conspiracy amongst others had collected a staggering

amount  of  Rs.7,74,33,59,929/-  from  various  depositors  under

several investment schemes in favour of Sardha Reality India Ltd.,

Page 6

6

by falsely promising them high returns but did not pay to the tune

of Rs.569,26,28,095/- , thus defrauding them.

8.   The  charge-sheet  so  far  as  is  relevant  for  the  present

adjudication disclose in substance that  Sudipta Sen with a motive

of  expanding  the  illegal  deposit  collection  business  of  Shardha

Group acquired T.V. Channels and Newspapers and entered into

several business deals in furtherance thereof.  In the process, the

appellant, who claims to be a Journalist and at the relevant time

was not only associated with the Media but had some clout on her

business in the North Eastern states, where such illegal exaction

of  Saradha  Group  was  expanding,  executed  on  09.06.2010,  a

Memorandum  of  Understanding  (MOU)  with  Sudipta  Sen

representing  M/s  Bengal  Media  (P.)  Ltd.   In  the  MOU,  the

appellant, along with her father, was  depicted  to be the absolute

owner of  M/s GNN India Limited.  conducting the  T.V.  Channel

(Rajdhani & Frontier T.V.). Under the said MOU, the appellant and

her father agreed to sell and transfer 50% share of M/s GNN India

Limited to M/s Bengal Media Private Limited  at a consideration of

Rs. 50 crores, in return whereof , she was to be appointed as the

Page 7

7

Chief Executive Officer of the latter company and further  to be

entitled  to  a  remuneration  of  Rs.  15  lakhs  per  month.   An

agreement  between  the  parties  followed  on  21.6.2010,

substantially in the same lines with the elaboration that M/s GNN

Indian Private Limited   would issue fresh shares to M/s Bengal

Media Private Limited  valued at Rs. 30 crores and further would

transfer a portion of the existing shares for an additional amount

of  Rs.  12.5  crores.   The  payments  were  to  be  made   between

21.6.2010 to 15.9.2010 as per the schedule agreed upon.  As the

charge-sheet mentions, investigation disclosed that in terms of the

agreement, the Saradha Group  paid Rs. 21,05,48,136/- to M/s

GNN India Private Limited.  It is referred  to in clear terms  that

the payment thus made was from the  illegal collections from the

depositors as at that point of time M/s Bengal was a loss making

company and was thus not in a  position to discharge such heavy

monetary financial liability and thus the whole transaction  was a

dubious   and  counterfeit  deal   only  to  launder   the  ill-gotten

deposits with ulterior motive.  

9.   That  during 2009-2010, M/s GNN India (P) Limited  had

almost no business activity and that  it had been recording loss

Page 8

8

during  the  financial  year  2010-2013,  was  also  noted.   The

charge-sheet further  discloses that the balance sheet of   M/s.

Sarada India  Reality  Limited was  fudged so much so  that   it

fraudulently disclosed that an amount of Rs. 24,68,85,200/- had

been advanced to M/s GNN India (P) Limited as Inter-Corporate

Deposits, which was patently false.  According to the  CBI and as

recorded in the charge-sheet, the petitioner entered into  the above

sham deal  with a  motive  of  extracting  undue  financial  benefit

being  fully  aware  of  the   illegal  deposit  collection  business  of

Saradha Group, which,  amongst others was demonstrated by  the

emails exchanged by her.  The charge-sheet further  divulges that

the liasion between Sudipta Sen  and the appellant  was with a

view  to  use  the  latter's  connection  to  negotiate  the  enquiry

contemplated against illegal deposit business and also to  utilise

her  influence  in  the  media  to  counter  any  negative  publicity

against the illegal business activity of Saradha Group and that the

appellant   actively  associated  herself  in  such  activities  and

criminally misappropriated the ill-gotten funds, as a party to the

criminal conspiracy.

Page 9

9

10.   The  charge-sheet   also  records   an  agreement  for  sale

between Sudipta Sen on behalf of Saradha India Reality Limited

and Santanu  Ghosh of  M/s. Global Automobiles for purchase of

58 lakhs equity shares of the  former company at a consideration

of  Rs.  25  crores.   That  there  was  also  a  separate  agreement

between  them,  whereunder  the  liabilities  of  M/s.  Global

Automobiles Limited were agreed to be taken over at a price of Rs.

220 crores   in all, figured as well in the charge-sheet.  This, the

CBI has in specific terms recorded on the basis of the investigation

that   Santanu Ghosh had indulged in such transactions being

fully  aware  of  the  illegal  deposit  collection  business  of   the

Saradha Group.   The supplementary charge-sheet mentions, to

reiterate  that  further  investigation is  continuing as  per  Section

173(8)  of  the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure,  1973   (for  short,

hereinafter to be referred to as “Code”)  in respect of influential

accused persons,  role of  regulatory bodies like SEBI,  ROC, RBI

and other agencies to unravel  the larger criminal conspiracy angle

and the money trail.  Admittedly, this supplementary charge-sheet

had been submitted on 4.1.2016, as noted above and though the

investigation  is  continuing,  there  has  been  no  further

Page 10

10

supplementary charge-sheet in between. Records  reveal  that

meanwhile, the appellant has been interrogated by the CBI in the

hospital  on 29.12.2015, 20.6.2016 and 14.10.2016.

11.       In the above imposing  factual backdrop, however, in the

interregnum,  Sudipta  Sen had been granted bail as the CBI had

failed  to  file  charge-sheet  within  90  days  of  his  arrest.

Subsequent thereto, several other persons arrested have also been

released on bail.  The High Court has also granted bail to Santanu

Ghosh, who was also arrested on 07.10.2015, in connection with

the above case.

12.     It has been insistently urged on behalf of the appellant that

as she is in judicial custody for over 15 months and is suffering

from various ailments requiring constant medical attention, she

deserves  to  be  extended  the  benefit  of  bail.   Further  as

charge-sheet  against  her  has  been  submitted  and  she  is  fully

cooperating  with  the  investigation,  her  further  confinement  in

judicial  custody is  inessential.   This is  more so,  as though the

investigation is claimed to be continuing, no further charge-sheet

has been submitted for  the last over one year and that  having

Page 11

11

regard to the visible delay in the initiation and conduct of the trial

in the face of innumerable witnesses cited, her further detention

would be travesty of justice.  Mr. Sharan  has urged that MOU

dated 9.6.2010 and the agreement dated 21.06.2010, referred to

in the charge-sheet  demonstrate transactions  which are purely

of  civil   nature  and  in  no  way  furnish  the  ingredients  of  any

criminal  offence  whatsoever.   According  to  the  learned  senior

counsel for the appellant, not only the evidence collected in course

of the investigation does not make out any offence as alleged, in

the teeth  of the release of the principal accused persons on bail,

the appellant's detention amounts to deprivation of her right to life

and liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

13. Per  contra  Mr.  K.  Raghavacharyulu,  Special  Public

Prosecutor   has  assiduously  urged  that  having  regard  to  the

mandate  of  this  Court  to  unfailingl   investigate  the  larger

conspiracy angle and determine the money trail of the deep-rooted

counterfeit affecting lakhs of innocent depositors,  release of the

appellant at this stage would be inexpedient.  In controversion, it

has been  asserted that the MOU and the agreement mentioned in

Page 12

12

the  charge-sheet,  in  the  facts  of  the  case  are  only  a  front  to

indulge  in  criminal  activities  as  divulged  in  the  investigation.

While  emphasizing  that  the  appellant  since  her  arrest  has

managed  to  remain  housed  in  hospitals,  by  feigning  ailments,

without suffering any incarceration in the real sense, it has been

asserted  that  lastly,  she  has  also  given  up  her  plea  based  on

medical ground and thus it is of no avail or significance for the

present.   According to Mr. K. Raghavacharyulu, her hospital bills

also do not endorse her plea of illness and treatment in connection

therewith.  He has urged that as the investigation is in progress,

notwithstanding the release of some of the accused persons, it is

not a fit case to grant bail to the appellant, more so when the Trial

Court as well as the High Court have rejected her prayer to that

effect on a consideration of all relevant aspects.

14. We have closely analyzed the competing contentions and

have  perused  as  well  the  pleadings   and  documents  presently

available on records.  In course of the arguments, having noticed

the  emphasis  on  the  ongoing  investigation  as  a  factor  against

grant of bail, we had required the learned counsel for the CBI to

Page 13

13

furnish a status report with regard thereto  disclosing the updates,

for a fair decision.

15. Accordingly, a status report had been laid before us in a

sealed cover, which apart from the background facts leading to the

registration of the case, arrest of the accused persons including

the appellant and the submission of the charge-sheets as on date,

has not in very clear and persuasive terms indicated the specific

issues/areas,  presently  being   pursued  in  the  investigation,  so

much so to impellingly justify further detention of the appellant in

judicial custody.  Though traces of the initiatives undertaken are

available in the status report, those, in our comprehension, too

general in nature.  For obvious reasons, we refrain from dilating

further on the contents of the said report.

16.    The  recorded  facts  demonstrate  admittedly  that  the

appellant is  continuously  in judicial custody since 07.10.2015

and that the supplementary charge-sheet against her along with

others  as  mentioned  therein,  had  been  filed  on  04.01.2016

incorporating  the  evidence  collected against  those  incriminated.

Having regard to the magnitude and canvass of the investigation,

Page 14

14

it  is  likely  that  the  exercise  would  take  further  time.  Though

according to the CBI, the ailments of the appellant are not worth

any weight    as  a  factor  to  grant  her  the privilege  of  bail,  the

medical records nevertheless suggest that she is suffering from a

variety  of  ailments.  Noticeably,  the  medical  records  have  been

issued by the hospitals in which she is  undertaking treatment.

We  are  not  unmindful,  at  this  juncture,  of  the  nature  of  the

hospital bills of hers as highlighted by the learned counsel for the

respondent.   Though it is the  plea of the respondent that the

appellant at times adopts a  disposition to avoid interrogation by

the CBI, no convincing material  has been brought on record to

demonstrate any misuse of her liberty qua the investigation while

in the hospitals since her arrest.  As per the medical records, her

ailments range from ischemic heart disease to  asthma, unstable

angina,   dysfunctional  uterine  bleeding,  constant  nausea  and

lower back pain.

17. This Court in Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of

Investigation (2012)  1  SCC  40,  also  involving   an  economic

offence of formidable magnitude, while dealing with  the issue of

Page 15

15

grant  of  bail,  had  observed  that  deprivation of  liberty  must  be

considered a punishment unless it is required to ensure that an

accused person  would stand his trial when called upon and that

the  courts  owe  more  than  verbal  respect  to  the  principle  that

punishment begins  after conviction and that every man is deemed

to be innocent until duly tried and found guilty.  It was underlined

that the object of  bail is  neither  punitive nor preventive. This

Court sounded a caveat  that any imprisonment before conviction

has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper  for

any court to refuse bail  as a mark of disapproval  of  a conduct

whether  an accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse

bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste

of  imprisonment as a lesson.  It was enunciated that since the

jurisdiction to grant bail to an accused pending trial or in appeal

against   conviction  is  discretionary  in  nature,  it  has  to  be

exercised with care and caution by balancing the valuable right of

liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general.  It

was elucidated that the seriousness of  the charge, is no doubt

one  of  the  relevant  considerations   while  examining   the

application of bail but it was not only the test or the factor and

Page 16

16

that grant or denial  of such privilege, is regulated to a large extent

by  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  each  particular  case.  That

detention in  custody  of under-trial prisoners  for an indefinite

period  would amount to violation of Article  21 of the Constitution

was highlighted.   

18. In  the  above  factual  premise  and  on  an  in-depth

balancing  of  all   relevant   aspects  and chiefly  the competitive

imperatives  of  investigation  and  the  right  to  liberty,  we  are

disposed, for the present to grant bail to the appellant, subject to

the conditions,  as enumerated hereinafter.   To reiterate,  having

regard to the materials available, we are of the opinion, mainly in

the  face  of  the  disclosures  in  the  latest  status  report,  that

presently further confinement of the appellant in judicial custody

is not an indispensable necessity for the unhindered investigation,

that is in progress.

19. In the above view of the matter, the appeal is allowed

and  the  appellant  is  ordered  to  be  released  on  bail  in  FIR

RC-04/S/2014-(SIT)  Kolkata  of  Rs.1  (One)  crore   and  on

furnishing   two  local  sureties  each  of  the  like  amount  to  the

satisfaction  of  the  Additional  Chief  Judicial  Magistrate  Alipore,

Page 17

17

Kolkata,  West  Bengal  and  also  subject  to  the  following

conditions :

1)   The  appellant  would  surrender  her  passport  to  the  Trial

Court.

2) She would not leave the territorial limits of the city Kolkata

     without the written permission of the Trial Court and without

     informing the investigating agency.

3) She would report before the Trial Court and the investigating

officer  once  a month,  till  the investigation in the case is

completed in full.

4) She would not  in  any  way hinder  or  try  to  influence  the

investigation  in   any  manner  whatsoever  and  would  not

endeavor  to  either  tamper  with  any  evidence  or

induce/influence/dissuade/intimidate  any  witness  or  deal

with any record relevant to the case.

5) She  would  cooperate  with  the  investigation  and  would

always be available to be interrogated by the Investigating

Agency.

6) Any other condition as the Trial Court may consider to be

appropriate if and as and when necessary.

7).   We hereby clarify that breach or  non-compliance of any of

the above conditions would entail immediate cancellation of

the bail granted, either suo motu or on any complaint made

by any quarter whatsoever.   

8).   Apart therefrom, such a breach or non compliance would be

viewed very seriously   and would visit  the  appellant  with

Page 18

18

stringent  adverse  consequences  as  contemplated  in  law.

The  Trial  Court  as  well  as  the  Investigating  Agency  are

directed to keep continuous vigil in the matter so as to, if

need be, bring to the notice of this Court any conduct or

action of the appellant warranting recall of this order.

20. We make it clear  that  this order has been rendered in

the  singular  facts  of  the  case  and  would  not  be  cited  as  a

precedent.

.............................................J.  (ARUN MISHRA)

         …...........................................J.

NEW DELHI (AMITAVA ROY)  FEBRUARY 6, 2017.

Page 19

19

ITEM NO.1A               COURT NO.10               SECTION IIB                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).  7899/2016 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated  09/09/2016  in CRM No. 473/2016 passed by the High Court Of Calcutta) MANORANJANA SINH @ GUPTA                           Petitioner(s)                                 VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION                    Respondent(s) Date : 06/02/2017 This petition was called on for Judgment today.

For Petitioner(s)    Mr. Amit Kumar,Adv.                       For Respondent(s)  Mr. K. Raghacharyulu, Adv.

Mr. Kailash Pandey, Adv.  Mr. Ranjeet Singh, Adv.

                    Mr. K. V. Sreekumar,Adv.                              

Hon'ble  Mr.  Justice  Amitava  Roy  pronounced  the judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra and His Lordship.

Leave granted.  The appeal is allowed and the appellant is ordered to

be released on bail in FIR RC-04/S/2014-(SIT) Kolkata of Rs.1 (One) crore and on furnishing two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Alipore, Kolkata, West Bengal and also subject to the conditions as indicated in the judgment.

  (NEELAM GULATI)        COURT MASTER

       (TAPAN KR. CHAKRABORTY)              COURT MASTER

 (Signed Non Reportable Judgment is placed on the file)