The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.2084 of 2024 Purna Chandra Panda …. Petitioner(s) Mr. D. Das, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha (Vigilance0 …. Opposite Party(s) Mr. N. Maharana, ASC (Vigilance) CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 08.10.2024 01. 1. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 27.02.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar in Criminal Misc. Case No.177 of 2023 arising out of Bhubaneswar Vigilance Division P.S. Case No.40 of 2013 corresponding to VGR Case No.40 of 2013, whereby his application for seeking permission to travel abroad to meet his son has been rejected. 2. The petitioner is an accused in Bhubaneswar Vigilance P.S. Case No.40 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 13(2)/13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act read with Sections 419/420/467/468/471/120-B of I.P.C. 3. In the instant case, the prosecution alleged that the Odisha State Cooperative Bank Ltd. (OSCBL), Bhubaneswar had introduced a special house building loan/personal loan for the employees of Govt./PSUs, for which the employees had to furnish an irrevocable undertaking from the DDO of the Establishment in Page 5 of 5 prescribed format to the bank for deduction of the loan installments from the monthly salary of the employees and to remit the same to the bank to make good the installment. The employees were also required to arrange personal guarantor from amongst the organization, where the petitioner is the employee. 4. One Rabindra Kumar Jena, who was working in the office of EIC, Water Resources, Odisha, Bhubaneswar as Junior Assistant and subsequently Senior Assistant has recommended the name of few of the employees for sanction of the loan, although he was never worked as a DDO of the Department. It is alleged that Sri Jena entered into a criminal conspiracy with the present petitioner, who was working as the Branch Manager and one Sri Lal Mohan Sahu, Field Officer of OSCB, Chandrasekharpur Branch, Bhubaneswar and sanctioned loan of 21 persons. Out of those 21 persons, it was found that many of them are not even the employees of Water Resources Department. The loanee employees have utilized manipulated and fraudulent documents to avail the loan. The present petitioner and other co-accused persons have facilitated the same. Therefore, the bank incurred a loss of Rs.1,29,44,540/-. Hence, the F.I.R. 5. The petitioner had approached this Court by filing CRLMC No.2665 of 2014 for quashing of the F.I.R. Vide order dated 01.07.2014, this Court dismissed the prayer made by the petitioner for quashment on the ground that the investigation of the case was in progress then. However, liberty was granted to the petitioner to surrender and move an application for bail before the Court below. Page 5 of 5 6. Pursuant to the aforementioned order of this Court, the petitioner appeared before the trial Court. He was enlarged on bail with a condition that <he shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without permission and shall also appear before the Court regularly=. The F.I.R. was registered on 13.12.2013 and the petitioner has been cooperating with the investigation since then. 7. Heard Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. Moharana, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department. 8. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the only son of the petitioner is working at USA and the petitioner along with his wife intended to visit their son for a period of three months on any conditions to be imposed. The petitioner is also ready to voluntarily undertake that he shall intimate about his travel details prior in time to the Court and meticulously follow the restrictions, if any, to be imposed by the Court. 9. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the learned Court below has rejected the petitioner’s application on the ground that the investigation in the present case has not yet been completed and if the petitioner would be permitted to visit abroad, the progress of investigation will be hampered. Therefore, while exercising the plenary power bestowed upon this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the prayer of the petitioner can safely be allowed as the investigation of this case is going on since last nine years and the petitioner has been fully cooperating with the investigation. He also submitted that the petitioner would be abiding by any condition that may be imposed for the purpose of undertaking travel for three months to USA and shall also appear Page 5 of 5 before the I.O. of this case as and when required even through VC during the travel. 10. Per contra, Mr. Moharana, learned counsel for the Vigilance Department objected the prayer made by the petitioner and submitted that the investigation of this case is in progress, and the petitioner is not cooperating with the investigation, for which, investigation is delayed. He further submitted that the petitioner appears to be the main accused and there is a possibility of <flight risk=. Therefore, he has submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for. 11. I have carefully considered the submission made by both the parties. Although Mr. Moharana, learned counsel for the Vigilance Department has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner but there is no material place on record to substantiate the apprehension expressed by Mr. Moharana, that the petitioner has been a <flight risk=. Rather, on the contrary, the petitioner has been participating in the investigation process since 2013 and he has already been enlarged on bail. There is no explanation coming forth from the Investigating Agency as to why such a huge delay has caused in completion of the investigation. In the backdrop of this, the submission of the petitioner requires urgent attention. He and his wife want to visit their son for a limited period. There is no reason as to why such prayer cannot be allowed. Therefore, in that view of the matter, I am inclined to allow the prayer made by the petitioner. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instruction from his client submits that although in case of the petitioner, there is no <flight risk= involved, however, to alley the apprehension of the Page 5 of 5 prosecution, he is ready and willing to furnish bank guaranty of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs) as a security in lieu of his travel to USA for three months. 13. I am of the considered view that the offer made by the petitioner is worth consideration. In the light of the aforementioned, I am inclined to allow the petition and directed the Court below to permit the petitioner to travel to USA for three months, subject to submitting the itinerary/travel schedule and details of the duration and place of stay in USA before the learned Court below and the Court below may impose any condition may deem fit and proper and expedient in the present case. The petitioner shall furnish undertaking that he would return to India and deposit the passport back in the Court below. 14. Accordingly, the order dated 27.02.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar in Criminal Misc. Case No.177 of 2023 arising out of Bhubaneswar Vigilance P.S. Case No.40 of 2013 corresponding to V.G.R. Case No.40 of 2013 is quashed. 15. With this observation, the CRLMC is disposed of. (S.S. Mishra) Judge Swarna Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SWARNAPRAVA DASH Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 15-Oct-2024 11:18:18 Page 5 of 5