JUSTICE v. NARASINGH Order No
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 11333 of 2023 Hemanta Kumar Panda …. Petitioner Mr. Ashok Mohanty, Sr. Advocate Mr. T. Dhiren Kumar Dora, Advocate State of Odisha -versus- …. Opposite Party Mr. K.K. Gaya, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Order No. 10. 1.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. A. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel for the
Decision
ORDER 21.05.2024 Petitioner instructed by learned counsel Mr. T. Dhiren Kumar Dora and Mr. K.K. Gaya, learned Additional Standing Counsel. 2. The Petitioner is an accused in connection with C.T. Case No.205 of 2023 pending on the file of learned S.D.J.M., Phulbani, arising out of E.O.W. P.S. Case No.14 of 2023 for commission of offence alleged under Sections 409/420/467/468/471/120-B of the IPC and Section 66(C) of the I.T. Act. 3. Learned counsel, on instruction, submits that except the present BLAPL, no other bail application of the Petitioner relating to the aforementioned P.S. case is pending in any other Court. 4. Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for bail U/s.439 Cr.P.C. by the learned Addl. S.J.-cum-Spl Judge, Phulbani by order dated 08.09.2023 in the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed. Page 1 of 5 5. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that the Petitioner is in custody since 06.08.2023 on the allegation that he connived with the co-accused in getting about 26 numbers of Pension Loans sanctioned to 18 persons and accordingly an amount of Rs.1,24,57,000/- has been disbursed to the SB accounts of the loanees out of which an amount of Rs.1,12,58,904/- has been diverted/transferred to 12 numbers of accounts in the name of different persons. 6. It is the further case of the prosecution that 59 numbers of Xpress Credit Loans have been sanctioned to 44 persons and accordingly an amount of Rs.6,67,50,000/- has been disbursed to the SB accounts of the loanees out of which an amount of Rs.5,72,33,038/- has been diverted/transferred to 43 number of accounts in the name of different persons. 7. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner was the secretary of Smruti Multipurpose Cooperative Society (P) Ltd. and in that capacity he was the authorized signatory of the bank account maintained with SBI Sahidnagar Branch, Bhubaneswar and referring to the charge sheet, it is submitted that an amount of Rs.47,43,104/- has been credited in the account of the said society. 8. And, it is the further submission of the learned Senior Counsel that since the Petitioner is in custody since 06.08.2023 and in the meanwhile as preliminary charge sheet has already been filed and since the entire allegation is based on documentary evidence, his further continuance in custody is not warranted more so, since the Petitioner is the first offender. Page 2 of 5 9. Apposite to note that it is the case of the prosecution that the entire exercise was done without the knowledge of the persons in whose names the loans were allegedly sanctioned. 10. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Gaya opposes the prayer for bail and sumbits with vehemence that this is an economic offence and taking into account the time frame to file charge sheet, the preliminary charge sheet has been filed in the case at hand and releasing the Petitioner at this stage would derail the ongoing investigation and unearth the money trail. 11. In this context the learned counsel for the State, Mr. Gaya relies on the celebrated judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vrs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2013) 7 SCC 439 and Nimmagadda Prasad Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2013) 7 SCC 466. 12. The Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vrs. Central Bureau of Investigation & another reported in 2022 (10) SCC 51 while dealing with economic offences on a different plain has laid down guideline for exercising the discretion while considering bail of an accused persons facing the accusation of commission of economic offence. And, quoted with approval the decision of the Apex Court in the case of P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement reported in (2020) 13 SCC 791; “………..Therefore, the underlining conclusion is that irrespective of the nature and gravity of charge, the precedent of another case alone will not be the basis for either grant or refusal of bail though it may have a bearing on principle. But ultimately the consideration will have to be on case-to-case basis on the facts involved therein and securing the presence of the accused to stand trial.” Page 3 of 5 13. During the course of submission, on instruction, learned Senior Counsel has stated that the Petitioner without prejudice to his rights is prepared to deposit a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs) upfront as a condition precedent to be released on bail and he also seeks indulgence of the Court to deposit further sum of Rs.32,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty-Two Lakhs) in two bimonthly installments over a period of four months from the date of his release. 14. Considering the nature of accusation and that the allegation qua the Petitioner is prima facie to the tune of Rs.47,43,104/- as borne out from the charge sheet, this Court directs the Petitioner to be released on bail on such terms to be fixed by the learned Court in seisin on payment of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs), as undertaken, as a condition precedent for release. 15. On being released, the Petitioner shall pay the balance of Rs.32,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty-Two Lakhs) within four months in two bimonthly installments. First of which shall fall due after two months of release and it is stated by the learned Senior Counsel, on instruction, that in the first tranche, he will deposit Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs) and the balance Rs.17,00,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs) will be deposited two months thereafter. 16. Learned Court in seisin is requested to fix the timeline for such further deposits of the two bimonthly installments over a period of next four months from the date of release. 17. On instruction, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner does not have any criminal antecedent of similar nature. 18. Before releasing learned Court in seisin is requested to verify the criminal antecedent of the Petitioner of similar nature. If it comes Page 4 of 5 to fore that the petitioner has any such criminal antecedent, this order shall not be given effect to. 19. It is needless to state here that any default in depositing the balance amount of Rs.32,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty-Two Lakhs), as directed as above, in terms of the undertaking shall entail the cancellation of the bail and the Petitioner shall be committed to custody in accordance with law without any further reference to this Court. 20. Additionally, it is directed that the Petitioner shall not leave the country without specific permission of the learned Court in seisin and shall surrender his passport, if any. 21. Considering that the investigation has been kept open under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C., it is further directed that the Petitioner shall cooperate with the ongoing investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when summoned. 22. The amount deposited shall be kept in interest bearing account subject to the outcome of the trial. 23. It is needless to state here that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of consideration of this bail application and the direction to deposit, on the basis of undertaking as noted, ought not to be constructed as this Court expressing any view regarding the complicity of the Petitioner which has to be established in an independent manner in the ongoing trial on the basis of materials on record. 24. 25. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTOSHI LENKA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 22-May-2024 13:57:23 Santoshi (V. NARASINGH) Judge Page 5 of 5