SUKANTA KUMAR SAHU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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 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 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.