S.K. Sahoo, J
1. The petitioner Pitambar Sahoo has filed this application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection Lalbag P.S. Case No. 308 of
2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1513 of 2020 pending in the Court of S.D.J.M. (Sadar), Cuttack in which charge sheet has been submitted
against the petitioner under sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The petitioner moved an application for bail in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack, which was rejected vide order dated 01.03.2021.
2. The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that one Lipun Behera lodged a written report before the Lalbag Police Station on 11.12.2020 stating
therein that he was working as a security guard in L.I.C. Office, Nuapatana Branch and he had got acquaintance with one Harmohan Dash, who was
working in S.S.I.B. security organization as the latter used to visit the L.I.C. office. It is further stated that he requested Harmohan Dash to arrange a
job for one Suman Mandal, who belonged to his sahi, as a security guard. On such request being made by the informant, the said Harmohan Dash told
him to act as the guarantor for Suman Mandal and also to bring documents like his own Aadhar card, photo, ID proof along with that of Suman
Mandal. Sometimes in December 2018, he along with Suman Mandal came to IIFL office, Nayasarak Branch (hereafter in short, ‘Company’)
and handed over all the required documents to Harmohan Das, who took some of his signatures and also that of Suman Mandal for the purpose of
getting a job for Suman Mandal. Suman Mandal got a job at some other place. After the dacoity took place in the Company, he came to know that by
utilizing the documents, which he and Suman Mandal had submitted along with plain paper signatures, fraudulently the said Harmohan Dash, accused
Lala Amrut Sagar Ray and accused Nilima Lenka conjointly pledged gold ornaments of the Company in Manappuram Finance Ltd., Bajrakabati Road,
Cuttack (hereafter ‘Manappuram’) with the help of the then Manager and the present petitioner.
On the basis of such first information report, Lalbag P.S. Case No. 308 of 2020 was registered under sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B/34
of the Indian Penal Code.
During course of investigation, it transpired that the accused Harmohan Dash introduced Suman Mandal with accused Lala Amrut Sagar Ray, Nilima
Lenka and other staff of the Company in the pretext of giving him a job as a security guard and the accused Harmohan Dash also convinced the
informant to give the documents to act as a guarantor. Instead of giving any employment, accused Harmohan Dash in connivance with accused Lala
Amrut Sagar Ray and Nilima Lenka, the employees of the Company obtained their personal documents like Aadhar Card, PAN Card etc. and created
fake gold loan accounts in their favour at Manappuram with the help of the present petitioner, who was working as Branch Manager in Manappuram.
In the customer history and account details in respect of the informant Lipun Behera and witness Suman Mandal, it revealed that a series of accounts
were created in their names at Manappuram and huge quantity of gold was pledged in their names without their knowledge and consent, i.e. 25
accounts of gold loan in the name of Suman Mandal and 223 accounts of gold loan in the name of informant Lipun Behera. The investigation further
revealed that fake photographs and mobile numbers which were clearly visible in the KYC document were provided in the branch in respect of fake
accounts in the name of Lipun Behera and Suman Mandal. During opening of fake loan accounts, the petitioner used the documents of Suman
Mandal, but changed the name of his father, which is clearly visible in the loan accounts. It is also revealed that the petitioner being the Branch
Manager had accepted pledging of gold provided by the employees of the Company in the name of Lipun Behera and Suman Mandal and made
multiple loan accounts with the KYC and later on, they pledged more gold and created new accounts with the same gold loan account by misusing the
KYC of those witnesses and their official status. On completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet against the petitioner
and others under sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code keeping the investigation open under section 173(8) of
Cr.P.C.
3. Mr. Dharanidhar Nayak, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was the Branch Manager of
Manappuram and he is in judicial custody since 16.12.2020 and the offences under which charge sheet has been submitted are all triable by
Magistrate. The main allegations are against co-accused Harmohan Dash, Lala Amrut Sagar Ray and Nilima Lenka, who were processing all the
documentation work relating to grant of gold loan of the customers in IIFL and the petitioner has an excellent service career and he was performing
his duties perfectly and he has neither created any fake accounts of the informant Lipun Behera or Suman Mandal of Pareswar Sahi and in his official
capacity, he provided loans to the customers against the pledged gold at Manappuram after due verification. There was neither any malafide intention
on the part of the petitioner while sanctioning loans nor he had committed any misappropriation. The petitioner was not aware that the gold pledged at
Manappuram were also utilized for availing gold loan in IIFL in the running account. The gold items pledged were also seized from Manappuram
branch. There are no clinching materials on record to show that the petitioner had connived with the co-accused persons in the misappropriation of
ornaments of the customers pledged in the Company to avail gold loan. It is argued that there is no chance of absconding of the petitioner or tampering
with the evidence and therefore, the bail application may be favourably considered.
4. Mr. Soubhagya Ketan Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State being ably assisted by Mr. Tapas Kumar Praharaj, learned
Standing Counsel submitted that from the statements of the witnesses and the materials available on record, it appears that number of illegalities
committed by the co-accused persons Lala Amrut Sagar Ray and Nilima Lenka in connivance with the petitioner came to the fore during course of
investigation. It is further contended that the petitioner being the Branch Manager of Manappuram with the assistance of the aforesaid two accused
persons along with others have created number of fake gold loan accounts in the names of the informant and Suman Mandal and siphoned off the
money received in respect of the said gold loan. It is also contended that without the connivance and active participation of the petitioner, the
misappropriation would not have been possible and when the investigation is still under progress and final charge sheet is yet to be submitted and huge
gold ornaments and cash have been siphoned, the petitioner should not be released on bail.
5. Mr. Asit Kumar Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the IIFL submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Branch Manager of
Manappuram and he in connivance with other accused persons committed serious economic fraud, which is having a wider ramification not only to the
Company but also to the society. It is further contended that the petitioner has illegally facilitated transfer of money into various fictitious loan accounts
in Manappuram in connivance with accused Lala from the Company. It is argued that the petitioner being an economic offender, committed the
offences keeping an eye on personal profit regardless to the consequence to the society and therefore, he should not be released on bail particularly
when there is chance of tampering with the evidence. Reliance was placed on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of State
of Gujarat -Vrs.- Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal and others reported in (1987) 2 Supreme Court Cases 364, Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy -Vrs.- CBI reported
in (2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases 439 and Aswini Kumar Patra -Vrs.- Republic of India reported in (2021) 84 Orissa Criminal Reports 1.
6. Adverting to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the case records, it appears that fake gold
loan accounts were created by the petitioner at Manappuram in connivance with accused Lala, Nilima, Harmohan Dash etc. by using the fake KYC
documents of the informant and another. The investigation further revealed that 72.1 grams of gold was seized from Manappuram pledged in the
name of Lipun Behera and 76.017 grams of gold was seized, which was pledged in the name of Suman Mandal. It is further revealed during
investigation that the seized gold items from the accounts of Lipun Behera and Suman Mandal at Manappuram correspond to the original accounts of
Geeta Mohanty, Nasim Khan, Smt. Banalata Barick, which were pledged by them in the Company. It is also revealed that an amount of
Rs.13,54,191/- has been credited in Manappuram by accused Lala, which was in the knowledge of the petitioner for repayment of the premium
against fake loan accounts in order to show the accounts alive and other payments. It is also revealed during investigation that in the customer history
details of the loan applications of Lipun Behera and Suman Mandal at Manappuram, the photographs of other persons have been attached.
Apart from the informant Lipun Behera and Suman Mandal, the witnesses like Basanta Kumar Behera and Meena Behera have also stated regarding
the involvement of the petitioner in the crime in connivance with Lala Amruta Sagar Ray, Nilima Lenka and Harmohan Das and they were
instrumental in opening the gold loan accounts in the names of the witnesses without their knowledge in Manappuram and availed huge loan illegally by
taking out pledged gold from the vault of the Company. The materials on record further indicate as to how the petitioner played a pivotal role in the
sanctioning of gold loans illegally from Manappuram with the active connivance of the co-accused persons.
7. Economic offences are always considered as grave offences as it involves deep rooted conspiracy and huge loss of public fund. Such offences are
committed with cool calculation and deliberate design solely with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. In such
type of offences, while granting bail, the Court has to keep in mind, inter alia, the larger interest of public and State. The nature and seriousness of an
economic offence and its impact on the society are always important considerations in such a case and those aspects must squarely be dealt with by
the Court while passing an order on bail applications. (Ref: Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal (supra), Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy (supra) and Aswini
Kumar Patra (supra)).
It is the settled law that detailed examination of evidence and elaborate discussion on merits of the case should not be undertaken while adjudicating a
bail application. The nature of accusation, the severity of punishment in case of conviction, the nature of supporting evidence, the criminal antecedents
of the accused, if any, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses, apprehension of threat to the witnesses, reasonable possibility of
securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial and above all the larger interests of the public and State are required to be taken note of by
the Court while granting bail.
The materials on record indicate that the petitioner while working as Branch Manager of Manappuram has failed to discharge his official duties
properly being gained over by the co-accused Lala Amrut Sagar Ray. 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 have been carried out in a very calculated and
organized manner for which Manappuram has suffered huge loss and the reputation of Manappuram was also affected. In view of the post which the
petitioner was holding at the relevant point of time in Manappuram 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 were with the active connivance with the petitioner in a pre-planned and
organized manner. The petitioner as a Branch Manager was supposed to act with honesty and integrity and show leadership qualities but the protector
has turned to a predator.
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, the punishment prescribed for the offences and since the petitioner seems to have played a very pivotal role in the
commission of offences in a pre-
planned and organized manner with active participation of the other co-accused persons as per charge sheet and thereby Manappuram has suffered
huge financial loss on account of illegal sanction of gold loan, at this stage when investigation is still continuing 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.
8. Accordingly, the bail application sans merit and hence, stands rejected.
