Orissa High Court
Sukanta Kumar Sahu vs State Of Orissa on 19 April, 2018
Author: S.K. Sahoo
Bench: S. K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
BLAPL No. 9249 of 2017
Application under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 in connection with G.R. Case No. 233 of 2017 pending in
the Court of S.D.J.M., Berhampur.
-----------------------------
Sukanta Kumar Sahu ........ Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Orissa ......... Opp. Party
For Petitioner: - Miss Deepali Mohapatra
For Opp.Party: - Mr. Prem Kumar Patnaik
Addl. Govt. Advocate
BLAPL No. 9365 of 2017
Siba Prasad Purohit ........ Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Orissa ......... Opp. Party
For Petitioner: - Mr. Dinesh Kumar Patra
For Opp. Party: - Mr. Prem Kumar Patnaik
Addl. Govt. Advocate
-----------------------------
2
P R E S E N T:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. K. SAHOO
...................................................................................................
Date of Argument: 12.04.2018 Date of Order: 19.04.2018
...................................................................................................
S.K. SAHOO, J.The petitioner in BLAPL No. 9249 of 2017 namely Sukanta Kumar Sahu and the petitioner in BLAPL No. 9365 of 2017 namely Siba Prasad Purohit have prayed for bail in connection with Gopalpur P.S. Case No.27 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No.233 of 2017 pending on the file of learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur in which charge sheet has been submitted for offences punishable under sections 420, 419, 468, 461, 406, 409, 120-B read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Since both the bail applications arise out of same case, with the consent of the parties, those were heard analogously and disposed of by this common order.
The prosecution case, as per the first information report submitted by one Gourav Nayak before the Inspector in charge, Gopalpur Police Station, Gopalpur, Ganjam is that the informant was Collection in charge of IFMR Rural Channels & Services Pvt. Ltd. (hereafter 'the Company') registered with the Reserve Bank of India, in the business of remote rural finance and doing business in the district of Ganjam since 2008 having 3 regional office at Berhampur and branch office at Deegipur village. The company used to give small loans to the needy people and in that process around 23000 customers across 33 branches in Ganjam district who are mostly villagers with poor background had received loan. It is the further prosecution case as per the F.I.R. that accused P. Minati Reddy had availed many loans earlier from the company but two loans were overdue and when she asked for more loans, the same was refused by the company and therefore, she started inducing the villagers by asking them to take loan from the company and she was using the money for her own self consumption, promising the villagers that she would repay the loan amounts in their names to the company. It is the further prosecution case as per the F.I.R. that around 293 customers having 408 loan accounts who had taken different loans from the company which amounted to Rs.1.63 crores confirmed that accused P. Minati Reddy had taken the loan money from them and promised them that she would repay the same directly to the financier. When the company approached the villagers for repayment of the loan amount, accused P. Minati Reddy gave assurance to repay the entire loan amount herself but she did not fulfill her promise. She admitted her liability of 173 loan accounts by writing a letter to the 4 company which was received on 16.09.2016. The petitioner Siba Prasad Purohit who was an ex-employee of the company also admitted that accused P. Minati Reddy had colluded with him to dupe the company by using unfair means to clear loans of the customers brought in by the said accused and then misappropriating the money of the villagers with the promise that she would repay their money. It is stated in the F.I.R. that the accused P. Minati Reddy cheated the company and also the innocent villagers by making them take loans from the company and misappropriated the same thereby causing wrongful gain to herself and wrongful loss to the company and the innocent villagers.
On the basis of the first information report, Gopalpur P.S. Case No.27 dated 01.03.2017 was registered under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code only against accused P. Minati Reddy. During course of investigation, the involvement of the petitioners was found out.
The petitioner in BLAPL No.9249 of 2017 was the Asst. Regional Manager of the company and the petitioner in BLAPL No. 9365 of 2017 was the Wealth Manager. It is contended by the learned counsels for the petitioners that the main allegation is against the co-accused P. Minati Reddy and 5 there are no materials against the petitioners to attract the ingredients of offences under which the charge sheet has been submitted. It is further submitted that some of the co-accused persons have already been released on bail in BLAPL No.53 of 2018 and BLAPL No.66 of 2018 vide order dated 12.01.2018 and therefore, the bail applications of the petitioners who have no role in the disbursement of the loan amount may be favourably considered.
The Investigating Officer has filed an objection to the bail application filed by petitioner Sukanta Kumar Sahu wherein he has stated that during course of investigation, it was revealed that the borrowers have not received their loan amount and the accused Minati Reddy had taken the money directly in the name of different borrowers with a promise to repay the loan directly in connivance with the company officials. It is further stated that the petitioner Sukanta Kumar Sahu being Asst. Regional Manager of the company had played a vital role in the sanction of loan amount by ignoring all the rules and regulations relating to grant of loan to the loanees. It is stated that as Asst. Regional Manager of the company, the petitioner Sukanta Kumar Sahu was required to verify the loan application forms and the KYCs received from the Wealth Manager and to make discussions with 6 the borrowers and to visit the residence of the borrowers to conduct Group Recognition Test (GRT) in case of Group Loan and in case of Micro Entrepreneur Loan (MEL) and also to assess the eligibility of the borrowers and since the petitioner deliberately ignored those procedures laid down by the company, that facilitated sanctioning of loans to ineligible persons and thereby the company sustained huge financial loss. It is further stated that as per the field visit report and internal inquiry conducted by the Regional Manager, it was found that in a number of cases, loans have been sanctioned in the names of fake persons with fake KYC address in the category of Micro Entrepreneur Loan and Joint Liability Group Loan. It is further stated that it was the duty on the part of the petitioner Sukanta Kumar Sahu being the Asst. Regional Manager to verify the genuineness of the borrowers and their KYCs before recommending their names to the Head Office for sanctioning of loan. The Investigating Officer has submitted the Internal Enquiry and Field Visit report so also the rules and regulations to be discharged by the petitioner Sukanta Kumar Sahu as Asst. Regional Manager. The documents further indicate the role played by the petitioner Siba Prasad Purohit. The documents indicate as to how in different loan transactions, fake loans have been disbursed in the names of the customers. 7
The learned counsel for the State contended that since the petitioners have failed to discharge their part of obligations by not verifying the documents properly and also not physically verifying the concerned loanees, there was illegal sanction of loan and thereby the company sustained huge loss. It is further contended that it would not have been possible for the accused P. Minati Reddy to avail such a huge loan amount without the active connivance of the petitioners who were in the post of Asst. Regional Manager and Wealth Manager and therefore, the petitioners are equally liable. It is further contended that the co-accused persons who have been enlarged on bail stand on a different footing and therefore, the petitioners cannot claim parity with them. It is further contended that since it is an economic offence which has been committed in an organised manner, if the petitioners are enlarged on bail, they are likely to tamper with the evidence and therefore, the bail applications should be rejected.
Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for the respective parties, I find that even though some of the co-accused persons have been enlarged on bail by this Court but the roles played by the petitioners as Asst. Regional Manager and Wealth Manager are completely different and 8 strong prima facie materials are available on record against them which indicate that the sanctioning of loan in respect of many fake persons would not have been possible had the petitioners strictly followed the Rules and Regulations of the company relating to grant of loan to the loanees. The genuineness of the borrowers were not verified so also their KYCs before recommending their names to the Head Office for sanctioning the loans. The company has sustained huge loss and materials are there to show that the petitioners acted in criminal conspiracy with the accused P. Minati Reddy and thereby caused wrongful loss to the company to the tune of Rs.1.63 crores.
In case of Nimmagadda Prasad -Vrs.- C.B.I. reported in (2013) 55 Orissa Criminal Report (SC) 833, it is held that economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as a grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.
Keeping in view the nature of accusations against the petitioners, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the 9 severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the petitioners, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the evidence, specific role played by the petitioners in the alleged crime and overall keeping in view the larger interest of public, I am of the view that the petitioners are not entitled to be released on bail.
Accordingly, both the bail applications being devoid of merit, stand dismissed.
..............................
S.K. Sahoo, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 19th April 2018/Pravakar