CUTTACK: The Orissa High Court has set aside an order of Special CBI Court in Bhubaneswar that refused to release the passport of Indrajit De, owner of M/S Eden Infra Projects Pvt Ltd, an accused in a chit fund case against whom charge sheet has been submitted, for two months.
“The apprehension of ‘flight risk’ of the petitioner, that is he might escape from the clutches of law, has to be objectively assessed and for objective assessment, the court has to be alive to the facts and circumstances of the case. Merely because a person is accused of misappropriating or siphoning off public money, it does not make him a ‘pre-trial convict’,” the single judge bench of Justice SK Sahoo said while directing the Special CBI Court on April 15 to release De’s passport for two months to facilitate his travel to the USA.
The CBI had charge-sheeted De under different sections of the Indian Penal Code and Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes(Banning) Act, 1978 on the accusation that in 2009-2010, Rs 2.05 crore was transferred to the bank account of M/S Eden Infra Projects Pvt Ltd from the bank account of M/S Tower Infotech Ltd, a non-banking financial company that collected public deposits throughout Odisha by allegedly alluring depositors with promise of high rate of interest.
The passport was deposited in the trial court when De was released on bail on October 9, 2023. He had requested the Special CBI Court in Bhubaneswar for temporary release of his passport for two months to visit the USA to take care of his old ailing mother-in-law, who was almost in death bed. His wife and minor daughter were residing in the USA and he was a regular visitor to the country and green card holder. But the trial court had rejected his plea on grounds of ‘flight risk’.
However, Justice Sahoo said, “Notwithstanding the allegation levelled against the petitioner, if it is found that he has been thoroughly cooperative in the proceedings before the trial court, there is hardly any reason for denying him his fundamental rights on the mechanical premise that the release of his passport involves flight risk. It has to be remembered that flight risk is not determined by the offences alleged against an accused, rather it is assessed by the conduct of the concerned accused.”
The judge further observed, “The trial in the case has not commenced and nobody knows how many years it would take for conclusion of the trial and therefore, during this period, it is not expected of the accused to keep himself away from professional assignments and his obligations to his family.”