AB 413/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I.A. ANSARI This is an application, made under Section 438 Cr.P.C., seeking pre-arrest bail by the accused-petitioner, namely, Sri Pranab Jyoti Barman, in connection with B IEO Police Station Case No.35/2010 under Sections 120(B)/420 IPC read with Sect ions 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. Perused the above application and materials on record. Perused also the relevant case diary. Heard Mr. AK Bhattacharjee, learned Senior counsel, for the petitioner, and Mr. Z. Kamar, leaned Public Prosecutor, Assam. In compliance with the directions, issued in this case, Mr. P.N. Murty, Assistant General Manager, Reserve Bank of India, is present, who submits to the effect that all the multilevel marketing schemes and transactions made thereund er are banned under the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, and, hence, the Reserve Bank of India does not grant licence for such sch emes, which stand banned and are illegal. Heard also Ms. Violet Baruah, Superint endent of Police (City), and Mr. B. Banerjee, Superintendent of Police, BIEO, wh o are present in terms of the Court’s direction passed in this Anticipatory Bail Application. Further personal presence of the three officers above-mentioned are here by dispensed with. Perusal of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, (i n short, ’the Act of 1978’), shows that contravention of the provisions of Sect ion 3 is an offence. As contravention of the provisions of Section 3 is an offen ce, Section 3 is reproduced below: 3. Banning of prize chit and money circulation schemes or enrolment as members or participation therein. No person shall promote or conduct any prize chit or m oney circulation scheme, or enroll as a member to any such chit or scheme, or pa rticipate in it otherwise, or receive or remit any money in pursuance of such ch it or scheme. From a bare reading of Section 3, what transpires is that no person shall promot e or conduct any prize chit or money circulation scheme, or enroll as a member t o any such chit or scheme, or participate in it otherwise, or receive or remit a ny money in pursuance of such chit or scheme. Clearly, therefore, if a person ge ts himself enrolled as a member of any chit fund or scheme or, otherwise, partic ipate in such a scheme or receives or remits any money in pursuance of such chit fund or scheme, he commits an offence. In the present case, the perusal of the relevant case diary reveals that the pet itioner had fully participated in the scheme, which falls within the ambit of th e Act of 1978, and he enrolled others also as members of the scheme. In such cir cumstances, particularly, when a large number of persons have been made members to the scheme, effective interrogation of the petitioner is imperative. What is, however, of immense importance to note is that while granting interim p re-arrest bail, on 24.02.2011, this Court directed the petitioner to appear, wit hin three days, before the Officer-in-Charge, BIEO Police Station, and make hims elf available for interrogation by police at all reasonable time. The investigat ing officer is present in the Court and has submitted that in violation of the d irections so issued, on 24.02.2011, in this case, the petitioner has not appeare d. The submissions, so made, by the investigating officer, has not been disputed . As far as the Reserve Bank of India (in short, ’the RBI’) is concerned, it is cl ear that since the scheme, in question, is, in itself, violative of law, the que stion of the RBI approving such a scheme does not arise at all. In the case at h and, the scheme of chit fund has not, therefore, been approved by the RBI. On considering the matter in its entirety, this Court is of the view that in the facts and attending circumstances of the present case, the petitioner cannot be given the benefit of pre-arrest bail. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, the prayer for pre-arrest bail, mad e by the petitioner, is hereby rejected. The interim directions for pre-arrest bail, passed, in this case, on 24.02.2011, in favour of the petitioner, shall accordingly stand vacated. The Bail Application shall accordingly stand disposed of.