Aswini Kumar Patra vs Republic Of India (CBI)

G. Satapathy, J

This is a bail application U/S.483 of the BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with FIR No.RC-09(A)/2019 BBS (RC0152019 A0009) registered at PS CBI/SPE/ACB, Bhubaneswar corresponding to TR Case No.07 of 2021 pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, CBI-1, Bhubaneswar for commission of offences punishable U/Ss. 120-B/409/420/ 471 of IPC and Sec.13(2) r/w Sec.13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 together with its Amendment Act of 2018 (In short “the Act”).

The allegation against the petitioner in this case arises out of an FIR lodged by one Roop Lal Meena, Deputy General Manager, Union Bank of India, who in his FIR dated 01.07.2019 has alleged that the present petitioner and other bank officials, along with private builders and borrowers had entered into a conspiracy in the year 2017 and the present petitioner and other bank officials by abusing their official position, sanctioned housing loan in favour of the borrowers/builders by accepting forged and fictitious documents as valuable security and in the process caused huge loss to the bank to the tune of 2.33 Crores approximately and accordingly RC No.09(A)/2019-BBS (RC0152019A0009) dated 01.07.2019 was registered against the petitioner and others for commission of offence punishable U/S.120-B/409/420/471 of IPC r/w Sec.13(2) r/w Sec.13(1)(d) of the Act and after due investigation, the CBI submitted charge-sheet in the case, but the petitioner was taken into custody on 30. 01.2020.

However, while the matter stood thus, the petitioner was granted interim bail by this Court, but he could not avail such interim bail due to the case registered against him by Enforcement Director(ED) basing on this FIR. Later on, the petitioner moved an application before the Apex Court for granting him regular bail in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.7701 of 2025, but the Apex Court while disposing of the SLP with same terms as that passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.7707 of 2025/7708 of 2025 with regard to submission for grant of bail to co-accused Uma Shankar Patro vide order dated 25.03.2025 in SLP (Crl.) No.11420 of 2024 and applying afresh before the High Court bringing in the aforesaid development on record and this is the circumstances under which the petitioner was approached this Court.

Heard, Mr. S Debabrata Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sarthak Nayak, learned counsel for Republic of India (CBI) in the matter and perused the record. Mr. Sarthak Nayak, without disputing about the fact of release of Uma Shankar Patro on bail, however, submits that since there is no change in circumstances in approaching this Court after refusal of bail to the petitioner, the present bail application cannot be considered on merit, more particularly when there is serious allegation against the petitioner for accepting forged and fake documents to grant loan to the co-accused persons.

After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears some allegation against the petitioner for accepting forged documents as an employee of the Union Bank of India to sanction loan to co-accused borrowers and builders, but fact remains that the petitioner is in custody since 31.12.2020 and in the meantime some witnesses have been examined out of the number of charge-sheeted witnesses. Mr. Sarthak Nayak, learned counsel for CBI also acknowledges about release of the accused Uma Shankar Patro who is alleged to have taken major chunk of loan from the Bank, but he, however, submits that the present petitioner stands on different footing. Be that as it may, right to speedy trial is the fundamental right of an accused and a person who is in custody for five years has legitimate expectation of conclusion of trial with promptitude, however, in this case even after five years custody of the petitioner the trial is progressing at snail pace, but taking into account the number of charge-sheeted witnesses cited in this case, it appears to the Court that the trial would take longer time. In the context of parity, this Court feels it proper to refer to paragraph 71 of the decision in Satender Kumar Antil Vrs. Central Bureau of Investigation; 2022 SCC Online SC 825, wherein, the Apex Court has observed as under:-

“71. Uniformity and certainty in the decisions of the court are the foundations of judicial dispensation. Persons accused with same offence shall never be treated differently either by the same court or by the same or different courts. Such an action though by an exercise of discretion despite being a judicial one would be a grave affront to Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India.”

In view of the above facts and taking into consideration grant of bail to co-accused Uma Shankar Patro and keeping in view the order granting interim bail to the present petitioner, but he having not availed such interim bail and taking into account the circumstances under which the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future, this Court without expressing any view on merit admits the petitioner to bail, but subject to further condition that the petitioner shall co-operate the trial.

Hence, the bail application of the petitioner stands allowed and the petitioner is allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) only with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin of the case on such terms and conditions as deem fit and proper by it with following stringent conditions:-

(i) the petitioner in the course of trial shall attend the trial Court on each date of posting without fail unless his attendance is dispensed with. In case the Petitioner fails without sufficient cause to appear in the Court in accordance with the terms of the bail, the learned trial Court may proceed against the Petitioner for offence U/S.269 of BNS, 2023 in accordance with law,

(ii) the petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any (if not already surrendered/seized), and in case, he is not a holder of the same, he shall swear an affidavit to that effect.

Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.