The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.996 of 2023 Satyam Pradhan …. Petitioner Mr.Yasobanta Das Senior Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opp. Party Mrs. Susamarani Sahoo, Addl. Standing Counsel Mr. A.K. Choudhury, Advocate (for the informant) CORAM: JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO Order No.
Decision
ORDER 21.03.2023 03. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode). Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. This is an application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with G.R. Case No.1591 of 2020 arising out of Lalbag P.S. Case No.321 of 2020 pending in the Court of learned C.J.M. -cum- Asst. Sessions Judge, Cuttack for offences punishable under sections 420/406/409/467/468/471/120- B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected by the learned C.J.M. -cum- Asst. Sessions Judge, Cuttack vide order dated 04.01.2023. // 2 // Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner for first time approached this Court for bail in BLAPL No. 3822 of 2021, which was rejected as per order dated 26.10.2021 with the following observation:- “ The materials on record further indicate that the petitioner being gained over by the co- accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy and Nilima Lenka was neither taking any action against them nor stopping the illegal activities going on in his branch. The petitioner allowed both the vault keys and vault to be operated by the aforesaid two co- accused persons. Even after receiving the amount from the customers for closure of their gold loan accounts, the amounts were misappropriated and loan accounts were not closed. The ornaments were taken out by tampering the packets and those were re-pledged in Nayasarak Branch in the names of different customers and in some cases the ornaments were pledged in other branches like Manappuram Finance Ltd. and empty gold pouches were kept instead of actual packets of gold ornaments. The statements of the witnesses and documents seized during the course of investigation prima facie make out the offences alleged against the petitioner and the entire activities seems to have been carried out in a very calculated and organized manner for which the Company not only suffered huge financial loss but the reputation of the Company was also affected in the eyes of public. There are materials to show that huge amount of money was transferred from the account of the co-accused Page 2 of 5 // 3 // Lala Amrut Sagar Roy to the account of the petitioner. In view of the post which the petitioner was holding at the relevant point of time in the Company and the duties assigned to him as a Branch Manager, I am of the prima facie view that the entire illegal activities committed by the co-accused persons could not have been possible without the active connivance with the petitioner. 10. In view of the foregoing discussions, the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the nature and gravity of accusation, the manner in which the crime has been committed in a pre-planned and organized manner and thereby the Company has suffered huge financial loss and innocent customers were cheated and since the petitioner seems to have played a pivotal role in the commission of offences alleged as per the charge sheet, at this stage when investigation is still under progress and there is reasonable apprehension of tampering with the evidence, in the larger interest of public and State, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.” The petitioner again approached this Court for bail in BLAPL No. 1425 of 2022, which was rejected on 20.12.2022 with the following observation:- “11. In view of the foregoing discussions, in absence of any substantial change in the circumstances after rejection of the earlier bail application on merit and particularly since there is strong prima facie case against the petitioner relating to his involvement in the commission of Page 3 of 5 // 4 // grave economic offence, I am not inclined to reconsider his prayer for bail on merit. Needless to say that after perusing the status of investigation submitted by the Inspector in-charge of Lalbag Police Station, since the case was registered on 29.12.2020 and in the meantime, almost two years is going to be elapsed and two charge sheets have also been filed, the Investigating Officer shall do well to conclude the investigation and close the same at an earliest without keeping it pending for an indefinite period. Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected. However, the petitioner is at liberty to renew the prayer for bail after examination of the material witnesses in the learned trial Court.” Even though while rejecting the last bail application on 20.12.2022, liberty was granted to the petitioner to renew the prayer for bail after examination of the material witnesses in the learned trial Court, the petitioner has filed the present application on 25.01.2023, which is hardly a month after rejection of the earlier bail application. The grounds have been taken for grant of bail to the petitioner as mentioned in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the bail application and prayer has been made for release of the petitioner on bail for a period of four months. On 03.03.2023, learned counsel for the State was asked to obtain instruction on this application. Today, learned counsel for the State has produced the written instruction received from the Inspector in-charge of Lalbag police station wherein it is mentioned that the son of the Page 4 of 5 // 5 // petitioner, namely, Saatik Pradhan is reading in Standard-II in Stewart School, Cuttack and the father of the petitioner died on 23.09.2022 due to old age disease and the mother of the petitioner, namely, Suman Pradhan is staying at Bangalisahi in her in-laws house and there is no male member in the family to look after the mother of the petitioner. The report is taken on record. Mr. Yasobanta Das, learned Senior Advocate contended that the presence of the petitioner is very much necessary for settlement in the period of crises, which arose after the death of his father. Learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, the nature of accusation against the petitioner, absence of change in the circumstances after rejection of the earlier bail application and taking into account the report furnished by the Inspector in-charge of Lalbag police station, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. The prayer for bail stands rejected. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of. Judge ( S.K. Sahoo) PKSahoo Page 5 of 5