Orissa High Court
Satya Pradhan vs State Of Orissa ...... Opp. Party on 26 October, 2021
Author: S.K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
BLAPL No. 3822 of 2021
Application under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in
connection with Lalbag P.S. Case No. 321 of 2020 corresponding
to G.R. Case No. 1591 of 2020 pending in the Court of S.D.J.M.
(Sadar), Cuttack.
-------------------------
Satya Pradhan ...... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Orissa ...... Opp. Party
For petitioner: - Mr. Ashok Mohanty
Senior Advocate
For opp. Party: - Mr. Soubhagya Ketan Nayak
Addl. Govt. Advocate
Mr. Tapas Kumar Praharaj
Standing Counsel
For informant: - Mr. Asit Kumar Choudhury
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Order: 26.10.2021
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- S.K. SAHOO, J. The petitioner Satyam Pradhan has filed this application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection Lalbag P.S. Case No. 321 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1591 of 2020 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M. (Sadar), Cuttack in which charge sheet has been submitted under sections 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471, 379, 120-B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
// 2 // The petitioner moved an application for bail in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack, which was rejected vide order dated 05.05.2021.
2. The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that one Ayan Saha Ray, Area Manager of India Infoline Finance Limited (hereafter in short 'IIFL') attached to the Branch Office, Nayasarak, Cuttack lodged a written report before the Inspector in-charge of Lalbag Police Station, Cuttack on 29th December 2020 to take stern action against the delinquent employees/culprits, namely, Satyam Pradhan (petitioner), the Branch Manager of IIFL, Nayasarak Branch (hereafter in short 'Company'), Lala Amrut Sagar Ray, Nilima Lenka and Kabi Prasad Pradhan, who were involved in the incident of staged dacoity that occurred on 19.11.2020 at the Company as strong suspicion emerged during the internal investigation/inquiry and audit as regard to their involvement for the act of omission and commission of theft, forgery, criminal breach of trust, wrongful gain and wrongful loss, criminal conspiracy and other allied offences of the Indian Penal Code. After a complete and careful investigation by the authority, it came to the notice that while the aforesaid persons were being employed, they were in the habit of doing all the misdeeds causing loss to the Company and in order to cover up their misdeeds and divert the attention of the higher officials of the Company, they in connivance with some customers and outsiders entered into a criminal conspiracy as the required number of packets were not available in the vault and staged Page 2 of 24 // 3 // an incident of dacoity that occurred on 19.11.2020 to show looting of 756 packets (out of this four packets have been retrieved from the auction Hub vide GL.10371281, GL.10558199, GL11101977, GL11860874 with total weight of 32.3 gms.) of gold ornaments weighing 33.71 kgs. from the total collateral security of 39.01 kgs contained in 1133 packets and took away whatever packets were available in the vault and cash of Rs.4.40 lakhs. It is further stated in the F.I.R. that audit was conducted on the packets, which were left back in the Company and it was found that in GL12285023, one item (chain of 20 gms.) was missing and the packet was also tampered and also another two packets bearing GL11724412 and GL16209898 were found tampered. The internal investigation and audit of the IIFL showed that accused Lala Amrut Sagar Ray and Ms. Nilima Lenka (gold appraisers), who were the custodians of the gold ornaments by abusing their position in the Company have committed a host of illegal activities beyond their jurisdiction. It is also alleged that the above accused persons in connivance with the petitioner and accused Kabi Prasad Pradhan (gold appraiser) siphoned off the money, which were received from the customers towards the closure of their loan accounts and there was a deliberate omission on the part of the above employees while making their entries in the system. In the F.I.R., the informant has mentioned the details of some customers, whose loan accounts have been closed, but still active in the system wherein loan closure amount has not been entered have been mentioned in a tabular form, Page 3 of 24 // 4 // which is as follows :
Loan A/c. No. Name of the No. of Loan amount
customer accounts in Lacs
GL12723396 Alok Sahu 2 5.7
GL14997587
GL15462806 Preeti Swarup Lenka 1 1.2
GL13479171 Ranjit Kumar Sen 1 0.2
GL13314018 Ashok Samanta 1 0.45
GL14087466 Abdul Aziz Khan 1 0.16
GL15924863 Mantu Kumari Sahoo 1 0.35
GL13642026 Chitta Ranjan Sahoo 2 2.49
GL13642727
GL14726607 Bata Krushna Behera 1 0.5
It is also alleged in the F.I.R. that the aforementioned accused persons have also taken away the gold ornaments from the vaults and again re-pledged in the Company in the name of some other customers by creating fake loan accounts to show artificial growth in business, which is stated in the following tabular form:
Loan Ac No Date of loan Name of Item which Weig New loan Date of Name of customer are taken for ht Ac No loan customer new loan orna ment GL12485257 2019921 Harekrushna 2 Bangles 26.09 GL155608 9/14/202 Pradip Kumar Sahoo 95 0 Ray GL13683170 20200207 Anisha Khatoon 1 Bracelet 34.8 GL161481 11/4/202 Manoj Jee 0 0 GL12477765 20190921 Kayfi Khan 1 Locket 6.3 GL141980 4/30/202 Sk. Israil 77 0 GL12892848 20191111 Ambika 1 Locket 4.2 GL161407 11/4/202 Sahaba Khan Maharana 34 0 GL12175191 8/16/2019 Adita Das Ring-2 9.6 GL156936 9/23/202 Suryaprakahs 48 0 Agrawal GL12831743 11/4/2019 Dipak Kumkar Ring-1 3.3 GL127517 10/22/20 Bedudhar Sahu 52 19 Moharana GL13245524 12/20/2019 Rojalini Das Ring-1 3.9 GL159487 10/16/20 Dipak Kumar 0 20 Sahoo GL15608106 17-09-2020 Sayadasagar Necklace-1, 62.9 GL156372 9/19/202 Santoshi Alli Chain-3 44 0 Sahoo GL12452165 19-09-2019 Bishnupriya Nacklece-1 15.1 GL156081 9/17/202 Sayad Asakar Parida Samant 06 0 Alli The informant has also stated the details of the ornaments which were illegally removed from the vaults of the Company and Page 4 of 24 // 5 // pledged in Manappuram Finance Ltd. and seized by the police from Manappuram and matched with the active packets of the Company, which are as follows:
Prospect No Date of Name of customer Loan Prospect No Date of Name of pledge amount of pledge customer Manappuram GL15435576 5/9/2020 Saroj Kumar Prusty 269598 70045475 13/10/2020 Mr. Lalit Soni GL14175288 21/03/2020 Dhananjay Dagara 265000 70045477 13/10/2020 Mr. Lalit Soni GL14502999 18/06/2020 Sonali Lenka 156000 70045180 17/09/2020 Mr. Debasish and Parent GL Hazra 12785904 GL14055969 12/3/2020 Shyam Sunder 245214 70042882 20/12/2019 Ghosh GL15625474 18/09/2020 Dhananjay Kumar 289919 70042696 2/11/2019 Mr. Debasish Dagara Hazra GL14061128 12/3/2020 Nikhil Kumar Dey 253834 70042723 2/12/2019 Mr. Rajkishore Sahoo GL13460193 16/01/2020 Rabindra Kumar 129250 70043449 13/02/2020 Mr. Nityananda Sahoo Sahoo GL15518284 11/9/2020 Ramakant Das 560000 70039898 5/3/2020 Mr. Hemanda Mohanty GL14053336 12/3/2020 Saroj Kumar Prusty 243000 70044777 14-08-2020 Mr. Bapuni Nayak GL15560895 14-09-2020 Pradip Kumar Ray 226856 70089904 5/2/2020 Mr. Lipun Behera GL13440424 13-01-2020 Rashmirekha 359809 70039156 15-01-2019 Mr. Nlamani Pradhan Saha GL13348236 3/1/2020 Ariph Khan 127200 70040673 17-05-2019 Mr. Saroj Prusty It is stated in the F.I.R. that the aforesaid accused persons are guilty of tampering the audited packets and removing the gold and keeping empty gold pouches instead of actual packets with ornaments in tray for tallying the counting of packets at the time of audit. It is also alleged that accused Lala also misused the auditor Login Id and Password and he himself paused/updated the tare weights of packets, which were not available in the vault by using the auditor tablet during their absence. It is also revealed that from active loan accounts, the gold ornaments were taken away and new loan accounts were created when they could not achieve the branch target. Apart from the above, the CCTV footage and security systems were manually manipulated by Page 5 of 24 // 6 // them, which were found out during the course of investigation, which indicates the involvement of the above accused persons in the commission of the crime.
3. On the basis of the first information report, Lalbag P.S. Case No. 321 of 2020 was registered on 29.12.2020 under sections 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471, 379, 120-B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
During course of investigation, it transpired that IIFL was having one branch located at Nayasarak under Lalbag Police Station. On 19.11.2020 at about 9.58 a.m., while four employees of the Company, namely, Mr. Kabi Prasad Pradhan, Nilima Lenka, Lala Amrut Sagar Ray and D. Rajesh were opening their gold loan branch office along with their security guard Basant Kumar Behera and housekeeping staff Meena Behera, all on a sudden four unknown robbers whose faces were covered with mask, entered inside the Company and forcefully closed the collapsible gate and shutter of the Company from inside. After entering inside the Company, the robbers took aside their staff namely Nilima Lenka and Lala Amrut Sagar Ray at gun point and physically assaulted them by means of kick and back push. When Nilima Lenka tried to hide the vault room keys, one of the robbers pressed her face and dragged her towards vault room wall. Another office staff namely Kabi Prasad Pradhan, D. Rajesh, security guard Basant Kumar Behera and house keeper Meena Behera were forcibly locked inside the toilet of the Company by the robbers. Thereafter, the robbers took Nilima Lenka and Lala Amrut Sagar Ray at gunpoint and forcibly made them open the Page 6 of 24 // 7 // vault room and the vault using keys which were kept by them separately for security purpose. Eventually within ten minutes of operation and taking the gold ornaments and cash in a bag from the Company, the robbers disappeared from the spot availing their bikes after snatching away the mobile handsets of all the Company staff as noted above and locked the entrance shutter of the office from outside. In this connection basing on the written report of Sri Tapas Ranjan Swain, Territory Manager of IIFL, Lalbag P.S. Case No.294 dated 19.11.2020 under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act was registered and investigation commenced. After the commencement of the investigation, the authorities of IIFL made discrete enquiry into the lapses incurred during the process and made an audit of their Company and they could able to reach at a conclusion regarding the crime involving huge cash and gold. After thorough assessment, the Area Manager of IIFL (informant of this case) lodged the F.I.R highlighting all relevant points of their loss and the crime which occurred in the Company.
Investigation further transpired that, prime accused Lala Amrut Sagar Ray was working in IIFL since 2011 as gold appraiser along with his staff Nilima Lenka, Kabi Prasad Prachan, D. Rash, Basant Kumar Behera, Meena Behera and others. Since three to four years back, he started misappropriation of the mortgaged gold of general public at the Company and he had put some of such gold in Manappuram Finance gold loan branches. By pledging gold in another Page 7 of 24 // 8 // company of B.K. Road Branch initially through his brother and later by Pitambar Sahoo at Choudhury Bazar branch, he had taken huge amount of loan for his personal gain and also some gold had been sold in the local market. All the employees except new entrants like D. Rajesh, security guard and housekeeping staff Mina Behera of the Company, hatched criminal conspiracy to cover up their misdeeds and Lala took the lead. On such backdrop, as the misappropriation became huge and the accused Lala Amrut Sagar Ray was not in a position to manage the audit of his company, he choreographed a plan with Ranjan Kumar Behera, Nilima Lenka and others to arrange a team to manage the misappropriation done by him. Ranjan Behera, who is a religious ideologue of accused Lala Amrut Sagar Ray arranged four of his supporters, namely, accused Raj Kishore Sahoo, Pabitra Kumar Behera, Prakash Kumar Sahoo and Santosh Bhoi and they executed the dacoity from the Company in respect of gold and cash from the vault of the Company kept in polythene packet having IIFL label mark on the point of toy gun. Some of the dacoity gold with IIFL label packets (Polythene Bags) and cash were seized from the exclusive possession of accused persons in presence of local witnesses during investigation of Lalbag PS Case No.294/2020.
The investigation revealed that Company is manned by one Branch Manager and some gold appraisers, valuers and others. In the higher hierarchy, it is controlled by one territory manager and above him remains one Area Manager, who looks into the normal functioning Page 8 of 24 // 9 // of the institution. Though some works were getting done in the Company on offline mode and some registers and records are maintained in the Company, but it was running almost in online mode. It was a loan giving institution against deposit of gold and taking interest from the public. When the customers moves to the Company, he has to contact the Customer Care Executive and later he is to be handled by one appraiser/valuer and later if loan is done by the customer, his photograph is to be taken, mobile numbers are shared and the photograph of ornaments are also taken and the entire things are transmitted to the Head Office by the Branch Manager and sanction is granted to the loan and cash is disbursed to the customer. The vault of the Company is maintained by two employees and its key is rotated among them in every two weeks. All security gadgets had been installed in the Company like CCTV collapsible at audit mechanism etc. During investigation, it was found that the employees of the said Company could able to breach all the security aspects on one pretext or the other. Nobody could observe the deficit in the surveillance system and the employees of the said Company could able to think the Company to be their parental and personal property and made access to the vault frequently and siphoned everything from the vault which were pledged in the Company. First they breached the security of the vault by complaining the opening of the vault manually instead of the OTP messages and the company authorities agreed to the same and manual operation started and by that the employees could be able to Page 9 of 24 // 10 // frequently enter into and out from the vault. Later the kingpin Lala Amrut Sagar Ray managed the vaults himself and all the employees supported him. Though rotation of the key was found on record but physically Lala and Nilima handled everything personally. This gave more scope to the accused persons to take out the pledged gold from the vault to outside. The petitioner as the Branch Manager of the Company did not concentrate on the official functions of the Company and he relied on accused Lala Amrut Sagar Ray. The petitioner Branch Manager had not only failed to discharge his official duty but being gained over by Lala Amrut Sager Ray, he supported the accused persons. Nilima Lenka was also aware of everything what was going on in the Company but she was taking her own share and remained silent and similar things happened to all other staff except the house keeper, sweeper, guard and newly appointed D. Rajesh. These employees hatched criminal conspiracy and siphoned off the pledged gold from the vault of the Company. Lala could be able to manage the Company by committing theft from the vault and pledged the same in the Company in the name of some other staff and close friends and shown the company more number of loan accounts and shown good business. First, he did the same for the IIFL Company to show business and later when nobody could notice the same, he started pledging the gold in other branches with the help of his old customers and opened accounts at other branches. As gold appraisers, all the employees had the responsibility to strengthen business of the company and when Lala Page 10 of 24 // 11 // managed to open new accounts, nobody opposed him. Though there was a strong audit system in the company, nobody recognized the loopholes in the process and the illegal people became more strengthened and later they started pledging the gold of the Company in other branches and as Lala was working at Manappuram Finance earlier and his brother was also at Manappuram Finance, B.K. Road Branch earlier, he started committing theft of the pledged gold from the vault of the Company and pledged it at Manappuram Finance Ltd., B.K. Road branch and took loan against each gold loan and thereby earned huge money in the process. He also transferred huge quantity to other staff of the Company and that to his associates against whom, he pledged loan. He could cunningly manage the photograph and phone number of the customers and diverted the same in his favour. One Ranjan Behera of Bilahat, a close friend of accused Lala was acting as his guru and used to help him during his problems. At times, he also managed the audit team with the help of Ranjan Behera. When his brother Lala Ranjan Ray got transferred from the Manappuram Finance Ltd., B.K. Road Branch, Lala approached the new Branch Manager Pitambar Sahoo in the pretext of making new loans and business for his branch and convinced him to help in this unlawful act and Pitambar Sahoo also helped him and both of them conspired together, pledged the loan committing theft from the Company. Even Pitambar Sahoo also pledged the loan in favour of his mother and brother. In this process, huge EMI for loan was to be paid every month and when it became Page 11 of 24 // 12 // difficult for the management of the Company and being scared to be caught during the audit, accused Lala had got no option but to contact Ranjan Behera to come out from this. They both i.e. Lala and Ranjan and one Raj Kishore Sahoo, Harmohan Das conspired together in a feast made at Baideswar temple at Choudwar and there they decided to commit dacoity in the Company and to show the misappropriated gold to have been taken away by the dacoits. Lala also moved to Bilahat area and interacted with other stake holders of the dacoity team and choreographed the plan. In that plan, the dacoits again congregated at the 'Nanda' factory of Ranjan Behera at Bilahat in the evening hours of 18.11.2020 and got prepared. Ranjan gave his bike to Raj Kishore and Pabitra brought his bike and they both tampered the number plates of their bikes using black tapes and contacted each other and confirmed it to Lala. On getting the confirmation, Lala had taken huge quantity of gold from the vault much earlier to the occurrence and kept it at another place in anticipation of dacoity as he was aware that others would be benefited in the process and he might not get anything after dacoity. As per their planning, accused Lala asked them to come to Cuttack and provide them a plastic gun and the team of four persons, namely, Raj Kishore Sahoo, Pabitra Kumar Behera, Prakash Kumar Sahoo and Bapi @ Santosh Bhoi reached at Cuttack and committed the crime in two bikes being on masks and also departed from Cuttack. Ranjan Behera, who was the mastermind of the dacoity, was waiting nearby and assured all others to come to their help in case of any kind Page 12 of 24 // 13 // of necessity. Later everyone took their small share and deposited the lion's share with Ranjan Behera. Later these robbed booties were recovered from each of the dacoits during investigation of Lalbag P.S. Case No.294 of 2020 and also during interrogation, they disclosed about the earlier misappropriation. On that aspect, investigation focused the entire things which come to light. In course of committing criminal breach of trust in the Company, the employees of the company associated themselves with the accused persons, namely, Lalit Kumar Soni, Saroj Kumar Prusty, Harmohan Das, Debasis Hazra, Nilamani Saha, Pitambar Sahoo and others. It was also established that accused Lala Amrut Sagar Ray and Nilima Lenka had taken the ornaments from active accounts of the Company and those were pledged at Manappuram Finance by security guard, housekeeping staff, their friends and relatives. The accused employees of the Company committed the crime in the following manner i.e. (i) ornaments were handed over to customers and the amount received from customers for closure of their gold loan accounts were misused by them without closing the loan account in the system and the amount misappropriated by the accused employees; (ii) ornaments from the packets were used for new loans whenever unable to achieve the target. Partly ornaments were also taken from the existing packets by tampering and re-pledging in the Company in the name of different customers; (iii) ornaments were taken from the existing packets by tampering and re-pledging in other branches like Manappuram Finance Ltd in the name of different Page 13 of 24 // 14 // customers to achieve the target of business in the Company; (iv) Keeping empty gold pouches instead of actual packets with ornaments in tray for tallying the accounts of packets at the time of audit. Accused Lala Amrut Sagar Ray misused the auditor login ID and password and he himself punched/updated the tare weights of packets which were not available in the vault by using auditor TAB when the auditor went out for lunch. The procedure of creation of OTP for opening of vault was not in operational since January 2020. The petitioner being the Branch Manager was not holding the vault key except four times in a year and both vault keys and vault operated by the accused Lala Amrut Sagar Ray, Nilima Lenka and they did not allow any other staff to operate the vault. All loan related activities were handled by them without allowing other staff in the Company. An internal audit of the said Company was conducted after the incident and the auditor submitted a report making observations as mentioned above. On completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted preliminary charge sheet against the petitioner and others under sections 420, 406, 409, 467, 468,471,379,120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code keeping the investigation open.
4. Mr. Asok Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was the Branch Manager of the Company 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 Lala Amrut Page 14 of 24 // 15 // Sagar Ray and Nilima Lenka, who were processing all the documentation work relating to grant of gold loan of the customers and the petitioner had a very limited role in the entire transaction as after the loan was finalized, photograph of the customer was taken, his mobile number as well as the photographs of the ornaments along with the report of the appraiser/valuer were transmitted to the Head Office by the Branch Manager (petitioner) and sanction was granted to the loan from the Head Office and thereafter cash is disbursed to the customer. It is further argued that similar accusation of misappropriation and cheating etc. was leveled by one Alok Sahoo against the petitioner by presenting an F.I.R. in connection with Lalbag P.S. Case No. 311 of 2020 registered under sections 420/ 409/408/403/120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the petitioner has already been released on bail in that case by this Court in BLAPL No. 441 of 2021 as per order dated 24.06.2021. It is further contended that the prosecution case itself is that when the misappropriation became huge and accused Lala Amrut Sagar Ray was not in a position to manage the audit of the company, he planned out in connivance with other co-accused persons to commit dacoity in respect of the gold and cash from the vault of the Company and the same was executed successfully in which the petitioner has got no role to play. It is further contended that though in the charge sheet, it is mentioned that the petitioner was aware of the activities going on in the Company by the co-accused Lala Amrut Sagar Ray as well as Nilima Lenka and that he Page 15 of 24 // 16 // had failed to discharge his official duty, but there is no clinching materials on record to show that the petitioner had connived with those co-accused persons in the misappropriation of ornaments of the customers pledged in the Company to avail gold loan and therefore, the bail application may be favourably considered particularly when preliminary charge sheet has already been submitted and all the relevant documents have already been seized and there is no chance of absconding of the petitioner.
5. 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 Ayan Saha Ray, the informant and the Area Manager, Tapas Ranjan Pradhan indicated that after the audit was conducted in the Company, number of illegalities committed by the co-accused persons Lala Amrut Sagar Ray and Nilima Lenka in connivance with the petitioner came to fore. The petitioner and those two accused persons have also siphoned off the money received from the customers towards closure of their loan accounts. Statements of witnesses Preeti Swarup Lenka and Manu Kumari Sahoo were placed to substantiate the accusation of misappropriation against the petitioner and the two co-accused persons. Some other statements were also placed to highlight the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged crime. It is contended that without the connivance and active participation of the petitioner, the misappropriation would not have been possible and when the Page 16 of 24 // 17 // investigation is still under progress and final charge sheet is yet to be submitted and huge gold ornaments and cash have been siphoned off, the petitioner should not be released on bail.
6. Mr. Asit Kumar Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the IIFL also opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Branch Manager in the Company since 2016 and he has committed the economic fraud in association with other co- accused persons and thereby innocent customers have been cheated. Even though the customers paid back their loan dues, but NOCs were not issued in spite of their repeated approach to the petitioner in that respect and the petitioner was not taking any effective steps to meet the grievances of the customers as he was hand in glove with the co- accused persons in committing the offences. The petitioner was supposed to supervise the duties performed by the gold appraisers, the functioning of CCTV, but deliberately he did not discharge his duty as per the policy/guidelines of the Company for which the Company sustained huge financial loss and reputation of the Company in the eyes of public was at stake. It is argued that the petitioner being an economic offender, committed the offences keeping an eye on his 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 Page 17 of 24 // 18 // (1987) 2 Supreme Court Cases 364, Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy
-Vrs.- CBI reported in (2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases 439 and of this Court in the case of Aswini Kumar Patra -Vrs.- Republic of India reported in (2021) 84 Orissa Criminal Reports 1.
7. Adverting to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the case records, it appears that witness Preeti Swarup Lenka, who was a customer of the Company has stated that on 07.09.2020 he had taken Rs.1,22,000/- from the Company after mortgaging gold ornaments weighing about 370 grams. Within two months, he deposited Rs.1,29,000/- at the Company including interest amounting to Rs.7,000/- and took back his mortgaged gold ornaments, but he was not given NOC pertaining to his loan closure on different pleas. On several attempts, when he failed to get the NOC, he requested petitioner, but in vain. He further stated that after receipt of one SMS from IIFL to pay the interest dues, he came to know that the money deposited by him has been misappropriated by the present petitioner in connivance with the accused Lala Amrut Sagar Ray and Nilima Lenka after hatching criminal conspiracy and they committed lot of illegal activities like cheating, fraud etc. The mobile phone of the witness Preeti Swarup Lenka and the relevant screen shots were seized under proper seizure list.
Another witness Manu Kumari Sahoo who was a customer of the Company has stated that she had taken Rs.35,000/- from the Company and took back her mortgaged gold chain, but she was not Page 18 of 24 // 19 // given NOC pertaining to her loan closure on different pleas. On several attempts, when she failed to get the NOC, she contacted the petitioner, but in vain and subsequently, she came to know that the petitioner and other employees after hatching criminal conspiracy have committed lot of illegal activities like cheating, fraud etc. in the IIFL.
Independent witnesses, namely, Santosh Kumar Sahoo and Sumit Dutta have stated regarding the involvement of the petitioner along with Nilima Lenka, Lala Amruta Sagar Ray, Harmohan Das, Ranjan Kumar Behera, Debasis Hazra, Saroj Kumar Prusty, Lalit Kumar Soni, Nilamani Saha, Pitambar Sahoo and others in this case. The said witnesses have also stated regarding cheating of number of fake gold loan accounts in the name of Lalit Sony, Soroj Kumar Prusty and others and misappropriated huge amount of money.
Another witness, namely, Alok Sahu who was a customer of the Company has stated that though he has cleared the loan amount after making due payment but he received SMS from IIFL in connection with the loan account to pay interest and he forwarded the said SMS to the petitioner, who assured to look into the matter and later on he came to know that though he cleared his loan amount after making due payment, his loan account was not closed in the system and the petitioner along with the gold appraisers had misappropriated such amount. The screen shots of such SMS received by the witness Alok Sahoo and his mobile handset were seized as per seizure list.
The witness Anisha Khatoon and her husband Iftekhar Alam Page 19 of 24 // 20 // also well proved the allegation against the petitioner and the gold appraisers, namely, Lala Amrun Sagar Ray and Nilima. The husband of the witness had been to the Company and there he came to know that out of his mortgaged gold ornaments at the Company, one bracelet was illegally brought out by the petitioner, Lala Amrut Sagar Ray and Nilima Lenka and another gold loan account was created in the name of one Manoj Jee without the knowledge of his wife. The borrower copy issued by the Company dated 07.02.2020 in favour of the witness Anisha Khatoon vide GL. No. 13683170 was seized as per seizure list.
The witness, namely, Satya Prakash Lenka, the brother of Preety Swarup Lenka, had mortgaged gold ornament with the Company and though he cleared the entire loan amount and he was not provided with NOC. On being asked, the petitioner and other gold appraisers took several pleas like failure of net/disorder of printer etc. When his brother received SMS from IIFL to pay the interest dues, then they came to know that the loan amount cleared by them has been misappropriated by the petitioner and his staff.
The investigation further revealed that huge amount has been transferred by Lala Amrut Sagar Ray from his account at Choudhury Bazar ICICI branch A/c. No.149501501633 to the account of the petitioner through IMPS on different dates. During further investigation, it was also ascertained that a sum of Rs.22,000/- has been transferred from the ICICI Company, CDA Branch, Cuttack bearing A/c. No.243501501323 for the period from 31.12.2018 to Page 20 of 24 // 21 // 03.08.2018 to the account of the petitioner on different dates.
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 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.
9. The materials on record indicate that the petitioner while Page 21 of 24 // 22 // working as Branch Manager of the Company has failed to discharge his official duties properly and the guidelines as per the branch manual issued by the IIFL was not followed at the time of sanction of gold loan in favour of the customers. The petitioner was supposed to perform the duties such as safe custody of vault keys, jewellery and cash, supervise the duties performed by GA and CCE, release of jewellery in case of repayment of loan, maintenance of vault cash registers and cash denomination registers, perform surprise cash verification, ensure branch security systems operational. He was to report the issue, if any and ensure that there is no breach of security protocols, conduct customer point verification for more than two lakhs to five lakhs, report any irregularity of serious nature to the Area and Territory Manager, test security alarm system on a fortnightly basis and submit the report to the Area Manager. He was also responsible for adhering to high ethical standards and complying with all the laid down processes/ policies of IIFL, KYC adherence, correct valuation and maintenance of 100% process compliance at the branch. He was also responsible for maintaining and displaying of statutory abstracts and registers as per guidelines and compliance requirements and also responsible for maintaining quality portfolio by tracking and controlling the threshold IRR and prompt resolution of queries and complaints pre and post loan disbursal.
The materials on record further indicate that the petitioner being gained over by the co-accused Lala Amrut Sagar Ray and Nilima Page 22 of 24 // 23 // Lenka was neither taking any action against them nor stopping the illegal activities going on in his branch. The petitioner allowed both the vault keys and vault to be operated by the aforesaid two co-accused persons. Even after receiving the amount from the customers for closure of their gold loan accounts, the amounts were misappropriated and loan accounts were not closed. The ornaments were taken out by tampering the packets and those were re-pledged in Nayasarak Branch in the names of different customers and in some cases the ornaments were pledged in other branches like Manappuram Finance Ltd. and empty gold pouches were kept instead of actual packets of gold ornaments. 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 seems to have been carried out in a very calculated and organized manner for which the Company not only suffered huge financial loss but the reputation of the Company was also affected in the eyes of public. There are materials to show that huge amount of money was transferred from the account of the co-accused Lala Amrut Sagar Ray to the account of the petitioner. In view of the post which the petitioner was holding at the relevant point of time in the Company 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 could not have been possible without the active connivance with the petitioner.
10. In view of the foregoing discussions, the oral and Page 23 of 24 // 24 // documentary evidence available on record, the nature and gravity of accusation, the manner in which the crime has been committed in a pre-planned and organized manner and thereby the Company has suffered huge financial loss and innocent customers were cheated and since the petitioner seems to have played a pivotal role in the commission of offences alleged as per the charge sheet, at this stage when investigation is still under progress 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.
Accordingly, the bail application sans merit and hence, stands rejected.
................................
S.K. Sahoo Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 26th October 2021/PKSahoo Page 24 of 24