Ashrumochan Biswal vs State Of Odisha

V. Narasingh, J

1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The Petitioner is an accused in connection with C.T. Case No.17 of 2023, pending before the Court of the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge(Vigilance), Phulbani, arising out of PHULBANI TOWN P.S. CASE NO.6 OF 2023, for alleged commission of offences under Sections-420/406/409/120-B/34 of the IPC.

Learned senior 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.

Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for bail U/s.439 Cr.P.C. by the learned Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge(Vigilance), Phulbani by order dated 27.01.2023 in the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed.

It is submitted by the learned counsel that the Petitioner is in custody since 10.01.2023 on the allegation that he as the Assistant Branch Manager connived with other accused persons facilitating sanction of loans by allowing them to pledge fake gold.

It is the case of the prosecution that in this process the Petitioner has caused pecuniary loss to the Bank to the tune of Rs.48,06,059/-, which came to the fore during audit.

It is submitted that in meanwhile out of Rs.48,06,059/-, which was advanced as loan, amount of Rs.20,00,000 has been deposited by the co-accused Prasant Kumar Senapati, who has already been released on bail by this Court by order dated 29.08.2023 in BLAPL No.5971 of 2023.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that since charge sheet has already been filed on 08.05.2023 and the nature of allegation being more or less based on documentary evidence, further continuance of the Petitioner in custody is unwarranted.

Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case Satender Kumar Antil vrs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, reported in 2022 (10) SCC 51, submits that the case at hand is an economic offence and has to be dealt with on a different scale. Merely because charge sheet has already been filed, the petitioner ought not to be released on bail.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner files an affidavit at the behest of the Petitioner that the Petitioner is willing to deposit Rs.5,00,000/- towards cash security, in the event the bail application is considered favorably.

Considering the rival submissions and taking into account that the sum of Rs.20,00,000/- has been deposited in the meanwhile by the co-accused, period of custody and taking into account the affidavit at the behest of the Petitioner, this Court directs the Petitioner to be released on bail on such terms to be fixed by the learned court in seisin.

Additionally, it is directed that since the amount involved is public money, before releasing the Petitioner shall furnish cash security to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees five lakhs) which shall be kept in an interest bearing account pledged in favour of the learned Court in seisin and shall abide by the final outcome of the case at hand.

The petitioner shall also furnish unencumbered property security to the tune of Rs. 20,00,000/- in favour of the Court in seisin, subject to final outcome of the case.

It is needless to state here that the cash and property security as directed does not in any way reflect the complicity of the Petitioner and the same has to be adjudicated independently in the impending trial.

Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per the rules.

…………………………..