SOMANATH ADHIKARI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner for releasing him on bail who is allegedly involved for the offences under Sections 465/468/419/420/471/409/120(B) of the I.P.C.

(2.) The factual matrix leading to the case of the prosecution is that in a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.12889 of 2011 this Court directed the Crime Branch for investigation with regard to financial irregularity in granting loan on the petition filed by one of the guarantors. During investigation the Crime Branch found the present petitioner allegedly with his wife started business of potato trading and cold storage in the name and style of M/s. Subham Supplier & Trading. It is alleged, inter alia, that on 1.10.2007 the petitioner approached the State Bank of India, Industrial Estate Branch, Rasulgarh for financial assistance to the tune of Rs.2 crore for the purpose of regularizing the lease of a cold storage at Bhubaneswar belonging to MARKFED by identifying his wife and another Devi Prasad Tripathy as guarantor. The Bank authorities also recommended proposal for granting loan. Ultimately the petitioner took the loan after submitting application proposing the names of Gouranga Pradhan of Sikharpur, Cuttack, Jata Sahu and Golap Sahu of Ranihat, Cuttack as guarantors who furnished details of their landed property. When the loan amount was not paid, notice under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 was issued to Golap Sahoo who approached this Court through the aforesaid writ application by disputing her identity. During investigation it came to light that the present petitioner has allegedly arranged one Pitabasa Behera of Balikuda, Cuttack and another Mamata Kandi of Choudwar to impersonate Gouranga Pradhan and Golap Sahoo, respectively to become guarantors and took the loan. When the petitioner was found to have committed the offence of cheating, criminal breach of trust and other offences, F.I.R. was registered and charge-sheet was submitted after due investigation.

(3.) Mr. S.S. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case because the petitioner took the lease of cold storage of MARKFED situated at Patia, Bhubaneswar through competitive bidding process and he had availed a loan from the State Bank of India after fulfilling all the required formalities. The petitioner has furnished the guarantors and the banking authorities after verifying their antecedents and identity, they were accepted as guarantors. It is further submitted that it is the Bank authorities who have played mischief in granting loan and the entire allegation is civil in nature. He further submitted that the coaccused persons have been already released on bail by this Court under different bail applications. The petitioner has been also investigated in other criminal case like E.O.W. (Odisha) P.S. Case No.06 dated 19.2013 for allegedly committed cheating and forgery while taking loan from the HDFC Bank for a sum of Rs.5.25 crores but in that case he has also been granted bail by this Court. Since charge-sheet has been submitted and there is no chance of tampering the evidence directly or indirectly, the petitioner may be released on bail with any condition as deemed fit and proper.