Cuttack, Aug. 2: Corruption is a "contagious disease" and "a corrupted person is never satisfied with the wealth he has amassed", Orissa High Court has observed while refusing to grant bail - for the third time - to Lok Sabha MP Rama Chandra Hansdah.
Justice S.K. Sahoo, however, directed the trial court "to expedite the trial and conduct it on day-to-day basis and make every endeavour to conclude it by end of December 2017" as the petitioner had remained in custody for more than two years and eight months. The high court further gave Hansdah the liberty to renew his prayer for bail before the trial court after the examination of the 18 witnesses according to the list submitted by the CBI.
The CBI arrested Hansdah on November 4, 2014 for his alleged links with one Nabadiganta Capital Services, a major player in the unauthorised deposit collection scam in the state. He has since been lodged at Jharpada jail in Bhubaneswar.
The arrest had followed a CBI raid on Hansdah's houses on July 31, 2014, when the sleuths had seized Rs 28 lakh in cash and other documents from there.
Justice Sahoo said: "Corruption is such a contagious disease that it may affect any person and at any point of time. It requires a lot of mental strength, sacrifice, detachment and continuous effort to avoid such disease. Like an unending thirst for human blood by a tiger, a corrupted person is never satisfied with the wealth he has amassed. He becomes blind to all kinds of ethics, rule of law, societal obligation and becomes self-centric."
Hansdah, who was elected MP on a BJD ticket and suspended by the party soon after his arrest, had filed a bail application for the third time.
The MP sought bail on the ground that the MPLAD scheme fund allotted to him had not been spent for the past three years, and for this, various projects could not commence and people of the constituency were being deprived of the schemes' benefits.
Justice Sahoo expressed disinclination to grant bail on the ground that there had been no change in circumstances since the two bail petitions of Hansdah were rejected.
Justice Sahoo, in his July 31 order, said he was not inclined to reconsider the prayer for bail and release the petitioner on bail. He said the prosecution's reasonable apprehension was related to the magnitude of influence the petitioner might cause once he was released from jail custody. Besides, the nature and gravity of accusation, its supporting evidence and adverse impact on the society, misappropriation of huge amount of public money as well as the severity of punishment in case of conviction were also under consideration in case of Hansdah's bail refusal.
Justice Sahoo further said the petitioner, once out on bail, might tamper with the evidence and manipulate the 18 witnesses, who had implicated him. They are yet to be examined in the trial court.
Besides, the court refused to grant him bail as it found the absence of any substantial change of circumstances or fresh grounds after rejection of the earlier two bail applications. The court rejected his bail petition on August 14, 2015 last year, citing "availability of prima facie materials regarding his involvement in the commission of offences".
On March 28, 2016, the court again rejected Hansdah's petition for interim bail, saying "taking into account the fact that further investigation of the case is under progress to unearth further evidence and other aspects of criminal conspiracy and money trailing and when the offence involved misappropriation of huge amount of public money, it would not be proper at this stage to release the petitioner (Hansdah) on bail".
