Orissa High Court
Pitambar Sahoo vs State Of Odisha ....... Opposite Party on 6 December, 2021
Author: S.K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ODISHA, CUTTACK
BLAPL No. 1887 of 2021
Applications under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
in connection with Mangalabag P.S. Case No.297 of 2020
corresponding to G.R. Case No.1504 of 2020 pending in the Court
of J.M.F.C. (City), Cuttack.
---------------------
Pitambar Sahoo ....... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Odisha ....... Opposite Party
For petitioner: - Mr.Dharanidhar Nayak
Senior Advocate
BLAPL No. 1811 of 2021
Saroj Kumar Prusty ....... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Odisha ....... Opposite Party
For petitioner: - Mr. Soura Chandra Mohapatra
Advocate
BLAPL No. 3287 of 2021
Debasis Hazra ....... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Odisha ....... Opposite Party
For petitioner: - Mr. Devashis Panda
Advocate
// 2 //
BLAPL No. 3189 of 2021
Lalit Kumar Soni ....... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Odisha ....... Opposite Party
For petitioner: - Mr.Avijit Pattnaik, Advocate
For State of Odisha: - Mr. Soubhagya Ketan Nayak
(in all BLAPLs) Addl. Govt. Advocate
Mr. Tapas Kumar Praharaj
Standing Counsel
For the informant: - Mr. Asit Kumar Choudhury,
(in all BLAPLs) Advocate
---------------------
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
...................................................................................................
Date of Order: 06.12.2021
...................................................................................................
S.K. SAHOO, J. The petitioners Pitambar Sahoo, Saroj Kumar Prusty,
Debasis Hazra and Lalit Kumar Soni in the above bail applications
have approached this Court for bail under section 439 of Code of
Criminal Procedure in connection with Mangalabag P.S. Case
No.297 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1504 of 2020
pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C. (City), Cuttack in which
charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioners on
Page 2 of 26
// 3 //
14.05.2021 for the offences under sections 419, 420, 411, 406,
409, 467, 468, 471, 379 read with section 120-B of the Indian
Penal Code keeping the investigation open under section 173(8)
of Cr.P.C.
The applications of the petitioners for bail before the
learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack were rejected as per orders
dated 01.03.2021, 18.02.2021, 16.04.2021 and 12.04.2021
respectively.
Since all bail applications arise out of one case, with
the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, those were
heard analogously and disposed of by this common order.
2. The factual matrix of the case at hand, is that one
Samir Debnath, the Area Head of Link Road area of M/s.
Manappuram Finance Ltd., Cuttack Division (hereafter in short
'Manappuram') lodged the first information report before the
Inspector in-charge, Mangalabag police station against twenty
four accused persons including the four petitioners stating therein
that Manappuram used to lend money against pledged gold
ornaments through its branches. Accused nos.1 to 20 were the
customers of Manappuram and accused nos.21 to 24 were the
previous employees of Manappuram. The Branch Head/Assistant
Branch Head was the custodian and authorized to sanction the
Page 3 of 26
// 4 //
loans against the pledging of gold basing on the purity of the gold
after verification of KYC of the customers.
It is further stated in the F.I.R. that the Inspector in-
charge of Lalbag Police Station came to Manappuram on
25.11.2020 and seized 6714.3 grams of gold ornaments from the
Bajrakabati Branch of Manappuram on the accusation that those
ornaments were involved in Lalbag P.S. Case No. 294 of 2020.
During course of investigation of the said case, which was under
section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 25 and 27 of
the Arms Act, basing on the statements of the
customers/accused, the ornaments were seized. In the said case,
the police had already seized gold from the pledged accounts
belonging to accused nos. 1 to 20 as they had taken gold loan by
pledging theft gold ornaments and that they had stolen away gold
ornaments from 2018 gradually on various dates and fraudulently
they availed gold loans from Manappuram. During enquiry by
police officials, the accused nos. 1 to 20 confessed that they had
pledged those stolen gold ornaments in Manappuram to avail
loans.
It is further stated in the F.I.R. that at the time of
pledging of the gold ornaments, Manappuram used to collect a
declaration from each and every customer that the gold
ornaments pledged were the absolute property of the customer
Page 4 of 26
// 5 //
and that no other person was having any right, title, claim or
interest over the gold ornaments and that he had got absolute
right to pledge the gold. Further the customer is to accept all the
terms and conditions of the gold loan and also issue demand
promissory note as part of the loan documentation. It is stated
that Manappuram received the pledged gold as security for the
loan advanced on the implied and lucid promise from the accused
persons that those ornaments pledged were their absolute
property. It is also stated in the F.I.R. that Manappuram lost the
gold ornaments which were the only security to the loan and
thereby Manappuram sustained a total loss of Rs.2,13,24,884/-
(rupees two crores thirteen lakh twenty four thousand eight
hundred eighty four only) and interest thereon.
It is further stated in the F.I.R. that Manappuram used
to collect KYC (Know Your Customer) documents i.e. Aadhar
Card/PAN Card/Votor ID Card/Ration Card/Driving License as per
RBI guidelines whenever a new customer was coming for availing
gold loan and each customer used to have an customer ID basing
on the KYC document submitted by the customer. It is also stated
that Manappuram did not allow to create ID without live
photograph of the customers. Accused nos.1 to 20 being colluded
with accused nos.21 to 24 created customer IDs without following
the guidelines of Manappuram for wrongful gain.
Page 5 of 26
// 6 //
It is also stated in the F.I.R. that the
accused/customers being aware of fact that they were not entitled
to the gold ornaments pledged by them, induced Manappuram to
part with the loan amounts, thereby the act of the accused
persons created wrongful gain to them and huge loss was caused
to Manappuram.
On the basis of such first information report,
Mangalabag P.S. Case No.297 dated 12.12.2020 was registered
against the petitioners and others under sections 419, 420, 411,
406, 409 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. During course of investigation, it was found that
Manappuram used to lend money against gold through its
branches. At the time of pledging of the gold ornaments,
Manappuram collected a declaration from each and every
customer that the gold ornaments pledged are his/her absolute
property and no other person is having any right, title, claim or
interest over the gold ornaments and he has absolute right to
pledge them. The customers accepted all the terms and conditions
of the gold loan of Manappuram and a demand promissory note
(undertaking) issued to the customers taking their signatures on
the same as a part of the loan documentation. Manappuram
received the pledges for the loan advanced. Accordingly, the
accused persons, namely, (1) Lalit Kumar Soni (petitioner in
Page 6 of 26
// 7 //
BLAPL No. 3189 of 2021),(2) Golap Sahoo, (3) Pravat Kumar
Nayak, (4) Rajkishore Sahoo, (5) Lipun Behera, (6) Suman
Mandal, (7) Bapuni Nayak, (8) Prakash Chandra Sahu, (9)
Basanta Behera, (10) Hemalata Mohanty, (11) Prakash Kumar
Sahoo, (12) Kabita Mantry, (13) Kartika Chandra Patra, (14)
Dasarathi Sahoo, (15) Anil Kumar Nayak, (16) Padmini Behera,
(17) Nilamani Saha, (18) Debasis Hazra (petitioner in BLAPL No.
3287 of 2021), (19) Saroj Kumar Prusty (petitioner in BLAPL No.
1811 of 2021) and (20) Nityananda Sahoo availed gold loan by
depositing pledged gold ornaments for security of their loan with
all the terms and conditions of Manappuram. On 25.11.2020, the
Inspector in-charge of Lalbag Police Station came to the branch
office of Manapuram and seized 6714.3 gram of gold ornaments
from the branch stating that the said gold is involved in Lalbag
P.S. Case No.294 of 2020 under section 395 of the Indian Penal
Code read with sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. During
investigation of the above case of Lalbag police station, it was
established that the police had already seized gold from the
pledged accounts of above accused persons and they had taken
gold loan by pledging theft gold ornaments and gradually from
2018 on various dates, they availed gold loans from Manappuram
in fraudulent manner by pledging those stolen gold ornaments as
security. During availing of gold loan, they submitted KYC (Know
Page 7 of 26
// 8 //
Your customer), documents i.e. Adhar Card/PAN Card/Votor ID
Card/Ration Card/Driving License as per RBI guidelines. It was
further revealed that though Manappuram was not allowing to
create an ID without the photograph of the customer, but the
above accused persons nos.1 to 20 being colluded with staff/Ex-
staff of the Manappuram, namely, (1) Silu Mantry, (2) Gitanjali
Behera, (3) Lala Ranjan Ray, (4) Pitambar Sahoo (petitioner in
BLAPL No. 1887 of 2021) all are of B.K. Road branch, Cuttack
created Customer ID without following the guidelines of company
for their wrongful gain and thereby causing wrongful loss of
Rs.2,13,24,884/- to Manappuram.
During course of investigation, the Investigating
Officer examined the informant, visited the spot, examined the
witnesses, seized the copy of Reserve Bank Guidelines on Fair
Practices code for non-banking financial corporation, copy of by-
law of Manappuram, copy regarding Duty Distribution of
Employees of Manappuram, copy regarding procedure for sanction
of loan, loan particulars of customers, namely, Lalit Kumar Soni,
Golap Sahoo, Pravat Kumar Nayak, Rajkishore Sahoo, Nilamani
Saha, Debasis Hazra, Lipuna Behera, Suman Mandal Mohanty,
Nityananda Sahoo, Prakash Kumar Sahoo, Kabita Mantry, Kartik
Chandra Patra, Dasarathi Sahoo, Padmini Behera, Anil Kumar
Nayak, appointment letter of Manappuram in favour of petitioner
Page 8 of 26
// 9 //
Pitambar Sahoo (BLAPL No.1887 of 2021), Chandan Kumar Jena,
salary statement of Pitambar Sahoo, Gettanjali Behera, Chandan
Kumar Jena, Lala Ranjan Ray, report regarding stolen gold of
Manappuram addressed to the Manager, Vigilance Department of
Manappuram and experience details of staffs on production by the
complainant.
During the course of investigation, the investigating
officer found prima facie case under sections 419, 420, 411, 406,
409, 379 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code against the accused
persons, namely, Lalit Kumar Soni (petitioner in BLAPL No. 3189
of 2021), Rajkishore Sahoo, Prakash Kumar Sahoo, Nilamani
Saha, Debasish Hazra(petitioner in BLAPL No. 3287 of 2021),
Saroj Kumar Prusty (petitioner in BLAPL No. 1811 of 2021),
Pitambar Sahoo (petitioner in BLAPL No. 1887 of 2021) and Lala
Amrut Sagar Roy and others, who colluded with the present
staffs, namely, Pitambar Sahoo(petitioner in BLAPL No. 1887 of
2021) and Gettanjali Behera and ex-staffs Lala Ranjan Ray and
Silu Mantry of Manappuram and Lala Amrut Sagar Roy of Indian
Infoline Finance Ltd., Nayasarak Branch, Cuttack (hereafter in
short, 'IIFL') to have made conspiracy and pledged the theft gold
ornaments by creating ID violating the guidelines of Reserve Bank
of India as well as bye-law of Manappuram causing huge loss of
about Rs.2,13,24,884/-. Since the petitioners had already been
Page 9 of 26
// 10 //
arrested in connection with Lalbag P.S. Case No. 294 of 2020, the
Investigating Officer submitted remand report in respect of the
said accused persons. It is further revealed during the course of
investigation that the petitioners and other accused persons
hatched criminal conspiracy with dishonest intention to derive
wrongful gain by inflicting wrongful loss to the Manappuram and
IIFL in a fraudulent manner. The investigation further revealed
that the accused persons having a pre-meditation consent to
cheat the IIFL and Manappuram forged and fabricated a number
of documents in clandestine manner to plant identity of the so-
called account holders and after creation of such accounts, the
accused persons operated the accounts and could succeed to
receive cash against the pledged gold, which actually did not
belong to them. The offensive act of the accused persons in
forging the documents pertaining to the identity of so-called non-
existing customer amounts to forgery of valuable security, which
is punishable under section 467 of the Indian Penal Code. Since
forgery was committed for the purpose of cheating, sections
468/471 of the Indian Penal Code are attracted against the
accused persons as after manufacturing the documents, they used
the same as genuine having absolute knowledge that the
documents are forged. During investigation, it was revealed that
the petitioners Lalit Kumar Soni and Saroj Kumar Prusty made
Page 10 of 26
// 11 //
several transactions in their accounts with Manappuram and they
pledged the theft gold ornaments of IIFL in Manappuram with the
knowledge of the staffs of Manappuram, namely, petitioner
Pitambar Sahoo and Geeetanjali Behera. The investigation further
revealed that soon after transaction, the cash was transferred to
the account of accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy through UPI (Phone
payment), which clearly proved that he was fully aware about the
pledging of theft gold ornaments or sent the pledged gold
ornaments of IIFL for depositing at Manappuram through the
petitioners Lalit Kumar Soni, Saroj Kumar Prusty, Pitambar Sahoo
and others. As investigation of the case could not be completed,
but the statutory period was going to be completed, first charge
sheet was submitted keeping the investigation open for
verification of involvement of other customers, receipt of
transaction details of the bank account of the alleged customers,
physical verification, examination of all the customers/ staff and
sample signature of petitioner Pitambar Sahoo and other staff of
Manappuram.
4. At this stage, before proceeding further, I would like
to jot down the accusation against each of the petitioners.
(i) Accusation against the petitioner Pitambar Sahoo
(BLAPL No. 1887 of 2021):
Page 11 of 26
// 12 //
During investigation, it is revealed that the petitioner
Pitambar Sahoo, the Ex-Branch Head of Manappuram made
criminal conspiracy with accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy of IIFL
and other accused persons and misappropriated public money as
a banker by pledging the stolen gold of IIFL by opening fake
customer ID without following guidelines of Manappuram for
wrongful gain. The petitioner created accounts in the name of his
mother Golap Sahoo and brother Nityananda Sahoo deviating all
the guidelines of Manappuram and knowingly re-pledged the
stolen gold of IIFL in Manappuram in their names and availed cash
loan. It is also revealed that he placed the photographs of
different persons, putting signature in their name and also placed
his own photograph in the account of his brother Nityananda
Sahoo and gave wrong mobile number. He misused his power and
misappropriated the public money by pledging stolen gold of IIFL
in their accounts at Manappuram. He also opened two fake
accounts in the name of Suman Mandal and Lipun Behera without
their knowledge by forging the documents and using it as genuine
and has changed the father's name of Suman Mandal as
Jasobanta Mandal instead of Hadu Mandal and pledged the stolen
gold of IIFL in their names. The statements of Lipun Behera and
Suman Mandal proved the criminal conspiracy in between the
petitioner Pitambar Sahoo and accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy. The
Page 12 of 26
// 13 //
investigation further revealed that transactions were made
between Lala Amrut Sagar Roy and Manappuram though Lala
Amrut Sagar Roy had no pledged account in Manappuram and he
had not pledged any gold in his name.
During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer
recorded the statements of the witnesses and seized number of
documents which showed the involvement of the petitioner in the
alleged crime in connivance with other accused persons.
(ii) Accusation against the petitioner Saroj Kumar Prusty
(BLAPL No. 1811 of 2021):
During the course of investigation, it is revealed that
the petitioner Saroj Kumar Prusty made criminal conspiracy with
accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy, petitioner Pitambar Sahoo and
other accused persons and knowingly re-pledged the stolen gold
weighing 192.50 grams of IIFL in Manappuram and availed cash
of Rs.6,32,159/- (six lakhs thirty two thousand one hundred fifty
nine) giving false undertaking that the stolen gold ornaments
belonged to him. As all the gold ornaments pledged by the
petitioner were stolen from IIFL, those were seized in connection
with Lalbag P.S. Case No. 294 of 2020. During the test
identification parade in respect of the jewelleries, it was revealed
that the jewellery of Vinod Singh, Nikhil Kumar Dey which were
pledged at IIFL were stolen and re-pledged at Manappuram by the
Page 13 of 26
// 14 //
petitioner in connivance with his associates. The documents
regarding account details, quantity of pledged gold, details of
outstanding loan amount of accused persons were seized, which
proved his involvement in the case. The investigation further
revealed that five nos. of bank transactions were made by the
petitioner with the principal accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy from
his Bandhan Bank, Chandi Chhak Branch account for the period
from 04.08.2020 to 06.08.2020 and a total sum of Rs. 1,10,000/-
(one lakh ten thousand) was debited from the account of the
petitioner to the account of the principal accused Lala Amrut
Sagar Roy, which proves criminal conspiracy between the two.
The investigation further revealed that the mobile number,
photograph and signature, which were given at the time of
opening of account in Manappuram by the petitioner Saroj Kumar
Prusty are genuine.
During the course of investigation, the confessional
statement of accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy regarding deposit of
gold at Manappuram by the petitioner got corroborated by the
statements of Area Manager Sameer Debnath, Ranjan Kumar
Sahoo, Priyambada Mohanty, Truptimayee Parida, Prabhudutta
Dash and Sanjay Kumar Kap.
(iii) Accusation against the petitioner Debasish Hazra
(BLAPL No. 3287 of 2021):
Page 14 of 26
// 15 //
During the course of investigation, the Investigating
Officer found that the petitioner Debasish Hazra made criminal
conspiracy with accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy, petitioner
Pitambar Sahoo and other accused persons and knowingly re-
pledged the stolen gold weighing 1215.70 grams of IIFL in
Manappuram and availed Rs.37,10,026/- of cash as loan. He also
gave false undertaking that the stolen gold ornaments belonged
to his own. It is also revealed during investigation that all the gold
jewelleries pledged by petitioner Debasish Hazra were seized in
connection with Lalbag P.S.Case No. 294 of 2020. During the
identification process, the gold ornaments pledged at IIFL, which
belonged Ashok Kumar Sahoo, Asit Kumar Sahu, Dhananjaya
Kumar Dagra, Harekrushna Sahoo, Santoshi Sahoo, Shyam
Sundar Ghosh, Sk.Ebrahim, Sonali Lenka, Tapas Kumar Sahoo
were found to have been stolen and re-pledged at Manappuram
by the petitioner in connivance with other accused persons to
avail loan. The investigation further revealed that during opening
of the pledge account at Manappuram, the phone number given
by the petitioner was found to be genuine. The investigation
further revealed that bank transaction was made from accused
Lala's ICICI bank account to the account of the petitioner.
Page 15 of 26
// 16 //
Confessional statement of accused Lala Amrut Sagar
Roy implicating the petitioner regarding deposit of pledged gold of
IIFL at Manappuram stood corroborated from the statements of
Area Manager Sameer Debnath, Ranjan Kumar Sahoo,
Priyambada Mohanty, Truptimayee Parida, Prabhudutta Dash,
Sanjay Kumar Kap so also the involvement of petitioner in the
alleged occurrence.
(iv) Accusation against the petitioner Lalit Kumar Soni
(BLAPL No. 3189 of 2021):
During the course of investigation, it was revealed
that the petitioner Lalit Kumar Soni made criminal conspiracy with
accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy, petitioner Pitambar Sahoo and
other accused persons and knowingly re-pledged the stolen gold
weighing 795.60 grams of IIFL in Manappuram and availed cash
loan of Rs.24,98,165/- and he had not repaid the loan amount.
The investigation further revealed that the petitioner had given
false undertaking that the stolen gold ornaments belonged to him.
It was also revealed during investigation that all the gold
jewelleries pledged by petitioner were seized in connection with
Lalbag P.S. Case No. 294 of 2020. During the identification
process, the gold ornaments pledged at IIFL, which belonged to
Dhananjay Dagara, Manas Kumar Rout, Pradip Kumar Ray,
petitioner Saroj Kumar Prusty, Soumya Ranjan Muduli, Sukanta
Page 16 of 26
// 17 //
Mohanty and Venkatesh Sethy were found to be stolen and re-
pledged at Manappuram by the petitioner in connivance with other
accused persons. The investigation further revealed that during
opening of the pledge account at Manappuram, the phone number
given by the petitioner was found to be genuine. The investigation
further revealed that a sum of Rs.70,000/- has been debited from
the HDFC Bank account of the petitioner to the account of the
principal accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy on 10.10.2020. The
petitioner used his own mobile phone to get new loans by
pledging the gold of IIFL in his own name in connivance with the
other employees and agents and received loans of huge amount
in that respect.
The confessional statement of accused Lala Amrut
Sagar Roy regarding deposit of gold at Manappuram by the
petitioner got corroborated by the statements of Area Manager
Sameer Debnath, Ranjan Kumar Sahoo, Priyambada Mohanty,
Truptimayee Parida, Prabhudutta Dash, Sanjay Kumar Kap and
others regarding involvement of petitioner in the alleged
occurrence.
5. Mr. Dharanidhar Nayak, learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the petitioner Pitambar Sahoo in BLAPL No. 1887 of
2021 submitted that the petitioner was the Branch Manager of
Manappuram and he was taken on remand in this case on
Page 17 of 26
// 18 //
19.01.2021. It is further contended that during his entire service
career, the petitioner has performed his duty sincerely in his
official capacity and he has neither issued fake accounts to the
customers nor misappropriated any money. It is argued that in his
official capacity, the petitioner has provided loans to different
customers against the gold pledged in the branch after due
verification and there was no malafide intention of the petitioner
while sanctioning the loans nor any act of misappropriation was
done by him in course of sanction of loans. Learned counsel
further contended that the gold items were in the custody of the
branch and those were never kept with the petitioner and he has
not misappropriated any gold ornaments at any point of time. It is
further contended that some customers might have committed
mistake in order to fulfill their ulterior motive, which was behind
the back of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the basic
ingredients for constituting the offences under which charge sheet
has been submitted against the petitioner are lacking and
therefore, the bail application may be considered favourably.
Mr. Soura Chandra Mohapatra, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner Saroj Kumar Prusty in BLAPL No.
1811 of 2021 contended that the petitioner is in judicial custody
since 27.11.2020 and he is a victim of the circumstances. The so-
called criminal conspiracy between the accused persons is based
Page 18 of 26
// 19 //
on the confessional statement of the petitioner and the co-
accused persons before police, which is not admissible. The test
identification parades of the jewelleries were not conducted in
accordance with law. There are no materials that the petitioner
had knowledge that the gold ornaments, which he pledged
availing loan were stolen from IIFL and therefore, the bail
application may be favourably considered.
Mr. Devashis Panda, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner Debasish Hazra in BLAPL No. 3287 of 2021 submitted
that the petitioner was taken on remand in this case on
19.01.2021. He further submitted that there are no materials to
prove that the petitioner had taken loan by pledging theft gold
ornaments of IIFL, rather a false case has been foisted against the
petitioner. He further submitted that some theft gold ornaments
of IIFL might have been pledged in Manappuram but the gold
ornaments pledged by the petitioner are not theft materials.
According to him, neither the petitioner pledged the theft gold
ornaments nor he has got any involvement in the crime. Learned
counsel further submitted that basing on the statements of the
co-accused persons in connection with Lalbag P.S. Case No. 294
of 2020, the petitioner has been implicated and remanded in this
case and therefore, the bail application may be favourably
considered.
Page 19 of 26
// 20 //
Mr. Avijit Patnaik, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner Lalit Kumar Soni in BLAPL No. 3189 of 2021 submitted
that the petitioner is a jewellery shop owner and he was taken on
remand in this case since 19.01.2021 and there is 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 IIFL to avail the gold loan by repledging
in Manappuram. Learned counsel further submitted that the
allegation of the informant that the petitioner along with others
re-pledged the theft gold ornaments of IIFL in Manappuram is not
based on any evidence. It is further submitted that the petitioner
being a jewellery shop owner, he deals with a lot of people and
legally procures gold from them for various other practical uses
for his business and the gold seized from Manappuram belonged
to him and the same were pledged by him. Learned counsel
further submitted that the petitioner while purchasing gold from
accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy, had absolutely no knowledge that
those were the stolen gold of IIFL and he purchased the gold on
good faith as Lala Amrut Sagar Roy was a business customer
since long. Learned counsel further submitted that the allegation
against the petitioner that the petitioner being colluded with
accused nos. 21 to 24 created fake customer I.Ds without
Page 20 of 26
// 21 //
following the guidelines of Manappuram cannot be accepted and
therefore, the bail application may be favourably considered.
6. Mr. Soubhagya Ketan Nayak, learned Addl.
Government Advocate for the State being ably assisted by Mr.
Tapas Kumar Praharaj, learned Standing Counsel submitted that
the statements of Sameer Debnath, the informant and other co-
employees of Manappuram indicated that after the audit was
conducted in IIFL, number of illegalities committed by the main
accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy in connivance with others including
the Branch Manager of IIFL and Manappuram came to fore. It is
submitted that huge unlawful cash transaction between the
accounts of the petitioners and the account of the accused Lala
Amrut Sagar Roy, conduct of the petitioner Pitambar Sahoo
(BLAPL No. 1887 of 2021) in pledging huge quantity of gold of
IIFL in the name of his own mother and brother in Manappuram
fraudulently in connivance with accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy,
prima facie makes out the offences against him. Similarly, the
petitioners Saroj Kumar Prusty, Debasis Hazra and Lalit Kumar
Soni re-pledged the stolen gold ornaments of IIFL and availed
gold loan and the jewelleries were identified by the persons to be
theirs in the T.I. parade as they had pledged it in IIFL. He further
submitted that during investigation of Lalbag P.S. Case No. 294 of
2020, the Investigating Officer came to know that the present
Page 21 of 26
// 22 //
petitioners along with the staff of IIFL and others being colluded
with each other have re-pledged the theft gold of IIFL in
Manappuram and availed huge loan and thereby innocent
customers have suffered huge loss and Manappuram has also
suffered financial instability. He further submitted that when the
investigation is still under progress on some important angles and
final charge sheet is yet to be submitted, at this stage the
petitioners should not be released on bail as there is likelihood of
derailing the ongoing investigation.
7. Mr. Asit Kumar Choudhury, learned counsel appearing
for Manappuram submitted that in connivance of all the
petitioners, economic fraud has been committed in both IIFL and
Manappuram and huge amount of loans has been availed and
thereby innocent customers have suffered huge loss and
Manappuram has also suffered financial instability. It is argued
that the petitioners being hand in glove with each other
committed the crime in a pre-planned way keeping an eye on
personal profit regardless of the consequence to the society and
therefore, they 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,
Page 22 of 26
// 23 //
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 Odisha
Criminal Reports 1.
8. 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
Page 23 of 26
// 24 //
tampering with the evidence of 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.
9. Adverting to the contentions raised by the learned
counsel for the respective parties and analyzing the oral and
documentary evidence on record carefully, it appears that there
are prima facie materials to show criminal conspiracy between the
petitioners and the co-accused persons. The stolen gold of IIFL
were pledged in Manappuram by opening fake accounts without
following the guidelines and huge loan was availed against
pledged gold and misappropriated. The manner in which the
petitioner Pitambar Sahoo being the Ex-Branch Head of
Manappuram has conducted himself in the opening of fake loan
accounts and grant of loan against pledging of stolen gold of IIFL,
is very suspicious. He has even availed loan in the names of his
mother and brother by pledging the stolen gold ornaments of IIFL.
Since the guidelines of Manappuram were not followed at the time
of grant of loan, fake photographs and fake signatures were used
at the time of opening of the loan accounts as well as sanction of
loan, it prima facie shows that without the connivance of the
petitioner Pitambar Sahoo, it could not have been possible to avail
Page 24 of 26
// 25 //
the loan of such huge amount in so many accounts. The fact that
the pledged gold of the petitioners were identified in the T.I.
parade as the pledged gold of IIFL by the genuine customers and
particularly in view of the bank transactions between the
petitioners with the main accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy, it prima
facie makes out the offences under which charge sheet has been
submitted. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioners regarding the innocence of the petitioners is not at all
acceptable at this stage in view of the oral and documentary
evidence collected against them during investigation. Moreover,
the investigation is still under progress and it appears from the
charge sheet that many more important areas of the case are still
under investigation and many vital links in the crime are yet to be
unearthed and at this stage, if the petitioners are enlarged on
bail, there is every likelihood of derailing the ongoing investigation
and there is also every chance of influencing the witnesses.
In view of the foregoing discussions, without detailed
examination of the evidence on record and elaborate discussion
on the merits of the case, but considering the nature and gravity
of accusation, the nature of supporting evidence to substantiate
such accusation, the pre-planned manner in which the crime has
been committed, the financial loss suffered by Manappuram on
account of such crime, the incriminating articles seized from the
Page 25 of 26
// 26 //
petitioners and moreover, the severity of punishment in case of
conviction and since huge amount of public money has been
misappropriated, the impact of the crime on the society and in the
larger interest of public and State, I am not inclined to release the
petitioners on bail.
Accordingly, all the bail applications being devoid of
merits, stand rejected.
Before parting, I would like to place it on record by
way of abundant caution that whatever has been stated
hereinabove in this order has been so said only for the purpose of
disposing of the prayer for bail made by the petitioners. Nothing
contained in this order shall be construed as expression of a final
opinion on any of the issues of fact or law arising for decision in
the case which shall naturally have to be done by the trial Court
at the appropriate stage of the trial.
...............................
S.K. Sahoo, J.
Odisha High Court, Cuttack The 6th December 2021/PKSahoo Page 26 of 26