The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL NO.13386 of 2023 (In the matter of application under Section 439 of the CrPC). Deepak Kindo … Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha … Opposite Party For Petitioner For Opposite Party : Mr. G. Mishra, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. A. Mohanty, Advocate : Mr. A.K. Apat, Addl. PP Mr. S.R. Mohapatra, Advocate(Intervener) CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY DATE OF HEARING:29.04.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:06.05.2025 G. Satapathy, J. 1. This is the 2nd successive bail application U/S.439 of CrPC by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with EOW-CID, CB PS Case No.17 of 2021 corresponding to CT Case No.35 of 2023 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 406/420/497/471/120-B of the IPC pending in the file of learned A.D.J.-cum-PO Designated Court, OPID, Cuttack. BLAPL No.13386 of 2023 Page 1 of 14 2. The allegation against the petitioner in precise are the petitioner was the Managing Director of Sambandh Finserve Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as “SFPL”), a non-banking financial company having its corporate office at civil township, Rourkela and had the permission of R.B.I. to carryout business of non-banking financial services and the petitioner being the Managing Director of SFPL approached to another non-banking financial company registered with RBI namely, Annapurna Financial Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as, “AFPL”) for financial support to carryout financial activities effectively by giving loans to different individual entities and Joint Liabilities Groups and agreeing with the proposal, AFPL, accordingly, sanctioned two term loans amounting to Rs.3crores and Rs.2crores, total Rs.5crores @ interest 15.50% per annum with condition of repayment in 12 equal monthly installments starting from two months after disbursement of the amount in favour of SFPL on execution of two agreements by SFPL(borrower) and AFPL(lender) on 28thSeptember, 2020 at Bhubaneswar and accordingly, Rs.5 crores was BLAPL No.13386 of 2023 Page 2 of 14 credited to the account of SFPL, but subsequently AFPL coming to know about the fiscal fraud committed by SFPL, approached the petitioner to repay the loan, to which the petitioner only repaid Rs.50 lakhs with assurance to pay back the balance loan amount and thereafter, the petitioner did not repay the rest of the amount even after one year. It is also alleged that SFPL had not utilized the loan amount for lending loan to women joint liability groups and managed to embezzle the entire loan amount with dishonest intention and deceived AFPL in not paying the loan. On this issue, the head of Inorganic business of
Legal Reasoning
AFPL namely, Mr.Sabyasachi Rout lodged an FIR before the S.P., E.O.W., CID, C.B., Orissa, Bhubaneswar against the petitioner for deceitfully cheating AFPL by stating that prior to sanction of loan, SFPL had submitted one bank statement from 1st July, 2020 to 28th September, 2020 showing closing balance at Rs.17,51,33,609/- as on 25th September, 2020 by manipulating document instead of providing the actual correct balance of Rs.15,28,829/- as on that day and thereby, such bank statement of SFPL BLAPL No.13386 of 2023 Page 3 of 14 was found to be fake and fabricated to avail the loan by producing forged documents deliberately. On receipt of the F.I.R., EOW, Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No. 17 dated 31.12.2021 was registered for offences U/Ss. 406/420/467/468/471/120-B of IPC and the matter was investigated into by DSP, Sasmita Sahoo and accordingly, the petitioner was arrested and forwarded to the Court and the investigation accordingly resulted in submission of charge sheet against the petitioner and others and right now the petitioner and others are facing trial. 3.
Legal Reasoning
In the course of hearing, Mr. Goutam Mishra, learned Senior Counsel who is being assisted by Mr. Ashutosh Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the dispute between the parties is purely corporate dispute and no general public is either cheated or duped, but charge sheet has already been submitted and trial has already commenced, however, the trial would take some considerable time and, therefore, detaining the Petitioner would not be in the interest of justice and no fruitful purpose can be served by detaining the Petitioner further, rather if the Petitioner is released BLAPL No.13386 of 2023 Page 4 of 14 on bail, it would provide him some opportunity to discharge the contractual obligation entered by the Petitioner’s Company with some other Company. Mr. Mishra has further submitted that the Petitioner had in fact been released on interim bail on two spells, but he being an obedient citizen of India had surrendered to custody on either occasions within the time stipulated by the Court and thereby, the conduct of the Petitioner is above board. It is further submitted by the Petitioner, since the entire case against the Petitioner is based on material documents and the investigation being completed, there would be hardly any chance to tamper the documentary evidence by the petitioner and the Petitioner having already been detained in custody for near about three years, there is no justification for curtailing the liberty of the Petitioner by detaining him further. It is, however, submitted by learned Sr. Counsel that although the Petitioner has been implicated in some cases in different States, but he has already been granted bail in those cases which are very similar to this case, rather no criminal liability can be fastened in such cases BLAPL No.13386 of 2023 Page 5 of 14 as the cases arise out of violation contractual obligation which gives rise to civil liability. In relying upon paragraph 91 of the decision in Satendra Kumar Antil Vrs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2021) 10 SCC 773, Mr. Mishra has prayed to grant bail to the Petitioner. 3.1. On the other hand, Mr. A.K. Apat, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that not only the Petitioner is charged for cheating the Informant, but he is found on investigation to have misappropriated Rs. 109 Crores of different organizations by forging documents and producing inflated bank balance and, therefore, the Petitioner does not deserve to be released on bail. 3.2. Similarly, Mr. Supriyo Ranjan Mohapatra, learned counsel representing BOPA PTE Limited and Dia- Vikas Capital Private Limited as intervenor has opposed the bail application of the Petitioner by inter-alia contending that the witnesses cited in these cases are employees of the Company of the Petitioner and if the Petitioner is released on bail, there is every chance that BLAPL No.13386 of 2023 Page 6 of 14 the Petitioner would tamper prosecution evidence. Further, he has submitted that the Petitioner was in fact apprehended in this case with much difficulty after issuance of look out circular and such conduct of the Petitioner is also a ground to refuse bail to him, who is also involved for commission of offence punishable for life imprisonment U/S. 467 of IPC. It is also submitted by Mr. Mohapatra that the bail application of the Petitioner was earlier rightly rejected by this Court and there is no change in circumstance to consider the bail application of the Petitioner afresh. In summing up his argument, Mr. Mohapatra has prayed to reject the bail application of the Petitioner. 4. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record and on scrutiny of materials collected by the Investigating Agency, it appears that the Informant has lodged an FIR against the Petitioner for availing loan of Rs. 5 Crores as a MD of “SFPL” by showing fake bank statement of account of the company with inflated bank balance as against actual balance, but in the course of investigation, it is allegedly found by the BLAPL No.13386 of 2023 Page 7 of 14 Petitioner to have misappropriated a sum of Rs. 109 Crores by cheating the lenders and investors and misutilizing their funds by committing forgery. It is, however, argued by learned Sr. Counsel that the FIR allegation discloses inter-corporate dispute between two companies for an amount of Rs. 4.5 Crores since the Petitioner has already paid an amount of Rs. 50 Lakhs and thereby, such fact would only give rise to mere breach of contract, but since the allegation against the Petitioner is not only for cheating the Informant for a sum of Rs. 4.5 Crores, but also the investigation has unearthed allegation against the Petitioner for misappropriation to the tune of Rs. 109 Crores and it would too early to say that the allegation only reveals about mere breach of contractual obligation. It is also found in the course of investigation that the “SFPL” has allegedly produced manipulated bank statement at the behest of the Petitioner by showing an inflated bank balance to the tune of Rs.17 Crores and some odd amount as against the actual balance of Rs. 15 Crores and some odd amount to avail the load as ascertained by BLAPL No.13386 of 2023 Page 8 of 14 the IO and there is prima facie allegation appearing against the Petitioner for cheating, which is of course subject to proof. 5. It is, however, not disputed that while considering an application for bail, the Court has to consider inter-alia the followings:- (i) the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case the nature of of conviction and materials the by prosecution; relied upon apprehension (ii) reasonable tampering with apprehension complainant or the witnesses; of the witnesses or the threat to of (iii) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; (iv) character behaviour and standing of the accused and the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; (v) larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations. What are the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail has also been discussed in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar V. Ashis BLAPL No.13386 of 2023 Page 9 of 14 Chatterjee and another; (2010) 14 SCC 496 wherein the Apex Court after referring to several precedents has held thus:- ”9. …However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the the accused had committed offence; (ii) nature and gravity of accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; accused of danger (iv) absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; character, behavior, means, (v) position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.” the the 6. A harmonious reading of the factors and consideration for grant or refusal of bail as stated above would persuade this Court to consider the character, BLAPL No.13386 of 2023 Page 10 of 14 behaviour and standing of the accused and the circumstance which are peculiar to the accused and likelihood of the offence being repeated as well as larger interest of the public or the State as some of the factors amongst others while considering the bail to the applicant. Besides, the criminal antecedent of the accused is also a relevant factor and in this case, the Petitioner is also found involved in around seven cases in different States like Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Gujrat, Kerala and Odisha which was in fact not disputed by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, no matter it has not been stated in the bail application. Further, the report submitted by the learned trial Court reveals that trial has already commenced with examination 02 out of 40 charge sheeted witnesses, but fact remains that some of the materials witnesses are the employees of the Company of the Petitioner. It is no doubt true that a person accused of non-bailable offence may also be entitled to bail, if such person otherwise make out a case for grant of bail, even when there exists a prima facie BLAPL No.13386 of 2023 Page 11 of 14 case against such person, provided there is a need to release such person on bail where facts demand so. 7. Personal liberty of a person is precious, but it is not absolute in every situation. The individual liberty is restricted by larger social interest and its deprivation must have due sanction of law as held by the Apex Court in paragraph-17 of the decision in Ash Mohammad Vrs. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu and another; (2012) 9 SCC 446. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner has heavily relied upon the following paragraph of the decision in Sanjay Chandra Vrs. CBI; (2012) 1 SCC 40 as quoted in paragraph-92 in Satendra Kumar Antil (supra):- of “46.We are conscious of the fact that charged with the accused are economic huge offences magnitude. We are also conscious of the fact that the offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardize the economy of the country. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the investigating agency has already completed the charge sheet is already filed before the Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi. Therefore, the custody may not be necessary for further investigation. We are of the investigation and their presence in BLAPL No.13386 of 2023 Page 12 of 14 view that the appellants are entitled to the grant of bail pending trial on stringent conditions in order to ally the apprehension expressed by CBI.” 8. In this case, the investigation has already been completed, but the trial is going on and material witnesses are yet to be examined, but one of the apprehensions is that since some of the material witnesses were the employees of the Petitioner in the Company, there is a chance of tampering by the Petitioner. The above apprehension also gains significance in view of the alleged involvement of the Petitioner in other seven cases in different States on the backdrop of the fact of the magnitude of misappropriation amount to the tune of Rs. 109 Crores in this case. From the discussion made hereinabove and taking into consideration the enormity of allegations levelled against the Petitioner in committing fraud involving more than Rs.100 Crores and the alleged mode and manner of cheating the investors and lenders and also the alleged involvement of the Petitioner for similar offences in the cases instituted in different States and keeping in view the conduct of the Petitioner necessitating the BLAPL No.13386 of 2023 Page 13 of 14 Investigating Agency to issue lookout circular and trial having already commenced and material witnesses being yet to be examined, this Court does not consider it proper to grant bail to the Petitioner. Hence, the bail application of the Petitioner stands rejected. 9.
Decision
Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. (G. Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 6th day of May, 2025/Priyajit Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRIYAJIT SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 06-May-2025 19:34:50 BLAPL No.13386 of 2023 Page 14 of 14