S.K. SAHOO, J.

1. The petitioners in the above bail applications have approached this Court for bail under section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Lalbag P.S. Case No. 294 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1426 of 2020 pending in the Court of S.D.J.M. (Sadar), Cuttack in which charge sheet has been submitted for the offences as indicated below.

The applications of the petitioners for bail before the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack were rejected as per orders dated 11.01.2021, 19.01.2021, 01.02.2021, 11.01.2021, 19.01.2021, 15.01.2021, 24.02.2021, 27.01.2021 and 12.02.2021 respectively.

Since all bail applications arise out of one case, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, they are heard analogously and disposed of by this common order.

2. The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that one Tapas Ranjan Swain, the Territory Manager of Indian Infoline Finance Ltd. (hereafter in short, ‘IIFL’), a non-banking finance company incorporated and registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at IIFL House, Road No. 16V, Wagle Estate, Thane West and one of their gold loan branch situated at opposite Q bazaar, Nayasarak, Cuttack reported before Inspector in-charge, Lalbag police station that on 19.11.2020 at about 9.58 a.m. while their four employees, namely, Kabi Prasad Pradhan, petitioner Nilima Lenka, Lala Amrut Sagar Roy and D. Rajesh were opening their gold loan branch along with their security guard Basant Kumar Behera and their housekeeping staff Meena Behera, four unknown masked robbers entered into the branch and forcefully closed the collapsible gate and shutter from inside. After entering the branch, the robbers took Lala Amrut Sagar Roy at gun point and kicked him and physically assaulted him. It is stated that as per their initial records, approximately thirty nine kilograms of gold, which valued approximately Rs.17.77 crores (seventeen crores seventy seven lakhs) excluding the making charges and a cash of Rs.4.41 lakhs (four lakhs forty one thousand) were taken away by the robbers from the branch.

On the basis of such first information report, Lalbag P.S. Case No.294 dated 19.11.2020 was registered under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act against unknown persons.

3. During course of investigation, it was found that IIFL Ltd. is a non-banking financial institution and it has around 1873 branches all over India. IIFL Nayasarak Branch (hereafter ‘Company’) is one of such branch located under Lalbag Police Station and it is manned by one Branch Manager, some gold appraisers, valuers and others. In the higher hierarchy, it was controlled by one Territory Manager and above him remains one Area Manager, who was looking after the normal functioning of the Company. Though some works were being done in the Company on offline mode and some registers and records were maintained in the Company but the Company was almost running on the online mode. It was a loan giving Company against deposit of gold and taking interest from the public. When any customer was coming to the Company, he was first coming in contact with the Customer Care Executive and then he was to be handled by one appraiser/valuer and if the gold loan terms was agreed upon by the customer, his photograph was taken, mobile numbers were shared and the photographs of ornaments were also taken and then entire documents were transmitted to the Head Office by the Branch Manager and loan was sanctioned from the Head office and cash was disbursed to the customers. The vaults of the Company were maintained by two employees and its keys used to be rotated among them in every two weeks. All the security gadgets like CCTV, collapsible gate, audit mechanism etc. were installed in the Company. It also revealed during investigation that the employees of the Company could able to breach all the security norms on one pretext or the other and nobody could observe the deficit in the surveillance system and the employees/bankers of the Company could be able to think the branch to be their paternal and personal property and made access to the vaults frequently and siphoned everything from the vaults which was pledged in the Company. First they breached the security of the vaults by complaining the opening of the vaults manually instead of the OTP messages and the company authorities agreed to the same and manual operation started and by that process, the employees got the license to frequently enter into and out of the vaults and later on the kingpin accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy single handedly managed the vaults and all the employees supported him. Though rotation of the keys was found on record, but physically accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy and petitioner Nilima Lenka handled everything personally. This gave more scope to the accused persons to take out the pledged gold from the vaults to outside. The Branch Manager of the Company did not concentrate on the official functions of the Company rather relied on the co-accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy and he could not explain as to why he was having no control over the employees and he never reported the matter to any higher authorities. He not only failed to perform his official duty as per the guidelines but also being gained over by accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy, he supported the other accused persons. Accused Nilima Lenka was aware of everything that was going on in the Company, but she was taking her own share and keeping mum. All other staffs except the house keeper, sweeper, guard and newly appointed D. Rajesh were doing similar things.

The crooked employees hatched criminal conspiracy and siphoned off the pledged gold from the vaults of the Company. Accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy could able to manage the Company by committing theft from the vault and pledged the same in the same branch again and showed IIFL more numbers of loan accounts and 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 duty to strengthen the business of the Company and when accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy managed in opening 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 they started pledging the gold of the Company in other branches. Accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy pledged gold of the Company at Manappuram and took loan against each pledged gold and in that process earned huge money. He also transferred huge quantity of gold to other staff of IIFL of his branch and that of his associates against whose name he pledged loan. He could cunningly manage the photographs and phone numbers of the customers and diverted the same in his favour. He had also access with his school/college friend petitioner Ranjan Kumar Behera, who acted like his guru and suggestions were taken from him in the pretext of getting one Hanuman paise. Accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy distributed all kinds of resources with his friends/employees and managed the audit and at times with the help of petitioner Ranjan Kumar Behera. When his brother, who was working as Manappuram got transferred from the B.K. Road Branch, accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy approached the new Branch Manager petitioner Pitambar Sahoo in the pretext of making new loans and business for his branch and convinced him to help in this unlawful act and the petitioner Pitambar Sahoo also helped him and both of them conspired together and pledged the gold committing theft from the Company. Even the petitioner Pitambar Sahoo availed the loan in favour of his mother and brother.

The investigation further revealed that in the process, huge loan amount was to be paid every month and when it became difficult for the management of the branch to manage things, being scared of being caught in the audit, accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy has no option but to contact petitioner Ranjan Kumar Behera to come out of this and both accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy, Rajkishore Sahoo, petitioners Ranjan Kumar Behera, and Harmohan Dash conspired together in a feast organized at Baideswar temple at Choudwar where they decided to stage a dacoity in the Company to show the robbed gold to have been taken by the dacoits. Accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy also moved to Bilahat area and interacted with other stake holders of the dacoity team and made the plan. As per the plan, the dacoits again congregated at Nanda factory of petitioner Ranjan Kumar Behera at Bilahat in the evening hours of 18.11.2020 and got prepared. The petitioner Ranjan Kumar Behera gave his bike to Rajkishore Sahoo and petitioner Pabitra Kumar Behera brought his bike and they both tampered with the number plates of their bikes using black tapes and contacted each other and confirmed it to accused Lala. On getting confirmation, accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy took huge quantity of gold from the vaults and kept at Petanal area in anticipation of dacoity as his share much earlier to the occurrence as he was expecting that others would be benefitted in the process and he might not get anything after dacoity. As per their planning, accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy asked them to come to Cuttack and provided them a plastic gun and the team of four accused persons namely Rajkishore Sahoo, Prakash Kumar Sahoo petitioners Pabitra Kumar Behera and Santosh Bhoi reached at Cuttack and committed the crime in two bikes wearing masks and also departed from Cuttack. The petitioner Ranjan Kumar 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 of necessity. Later on everyone took their respective shares and deposited the lion’s share with the petitioner Ranjan Kumar Behera.

During course of investigation, robbed booties were recovered from each of the dacoits and also during interrogation, the disclosure of the earlier misappropriation came to light. On that aspect, the investigation focused and the entire things came to light. In course of conducting criminal breach of trust in the Company, the employees of the Company associated with the accused persons, i.e. petitioners Lalit Kumar Soni, Saroj Kumar Prusty, Harmohan Dash, Debasis Hazra, Pitambar Sahoo and others. On receipt of the orders of DCP, the Investigating Officer submitted first charge sheet against the petitioners on 23.03.2021 under different offences as aforesaid, keeping the investigation open under section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure awaiting collection of more oral, written and documentary evidence in the case.

4. Accusation against the petitioner Saroj Kumar Prusty (BLAPL No. 822 of 2021):

During the course of investigation, it is revealed that the petitioner Saroj Kumar Prusty was having a jewellery shop, namely, ‘Renuka Jewellery’ under Mangalabag police station and he was coming to the Company and taking loan in case of necessity by pledging gold and later he conspired with accused Lala, petitioner Nilima Lenka, Satyam and others to take loan illegally by re-pledging the gold of IIFL both at Nayasarak Branch and in Manappuram creating series of gold loan accounts in his name using his own KYC. In the Company, there were 58 (fifty eight) gold loan accounts in his name, out of which huge cash up to the tune of several lakhs of rupees were taken and 127 fake gold loan accounts were created in his name in Manappuram in which more than Rs.14 lakhs (fourteen lakhs) were taken as loan and every time cash transaction was preferred than cashless transaction in order to suppress digital evidence taking the plea of cashless transaction beyond rupees two lakhs. The fake accounts in the name of the petitioner were tracked at Manappuram belonging to the Company. It is also transpired that in the identification process, the gold ornaments pledged at the Company in the name of Nikhil Kumar Dey was found in the name of the petitioner at Manappuram and the bank transaction was made from the ICICI Bank account of accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy to the account of the petitioner for Rs.1,45,037/- and the petitioner used his own mobile phone numbers to get new loans pledging the gold of the vaults of the Company in his own name in connivance with the other employees and agents and received loan of huge amount to that effect and also received SMS from the receiver of IIFL regarding premium payment and over passed the same as his loans were getting renewed from time to time by the employees creating new loan accounts merging the old one.

During the course of investigation, 162.400 grams of gold was seized from Manappuram pledged in the name of the petitioner and the audit and identification of gold items seized from the account of accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy corresponded to the original accounts of Nikhil Kumar Dey vide Sl. Nos. 61 and 62 and Sl. No.132 Vinod Singh was found to be in the name of the petitioner. The investigation further revealed that an amount of Rs.1,45,037/- (one lakh forty five thousand and thirty seven) has been transferred from the ICICI bank account of accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy to Bandhan Bank Account. It was also revealed during investigation that multiple loan accounts were created in the name of the petitioner with details including phone numbers, amount pledged, the identity of customer and year of pledging, amount disbursed etc. both in the Company as well as in Manappuram.

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, Deepak Kumar Sahoo and Sitanshu Sekhar Ota. It is also revealed from the statements of Nikhil Kumar Dey and Vinod Singh regarding identification of their pledged gold in the account of the petitioner. Independent witnesses namely, Santosh Kumar Sahoo and Sumit Dutta also stated regarding involvement of the petitioner in the alleged occurrence.

Accusation against the petitioner Lalit Kumar Soni (BLAPL No. 991 of 2021):

During the course of investigation, it is revealed that the petitioner Lalit Kumar Soni was having a jewellery shop, namely, ‘Jasoda Jewellery’ under Purighat Police Station and he used to come to the Company and taking loan in case of necessity by pledging gold and later on he conspired with accused Lala, petitioner Nilima Lenka, Satyam and others to take loan illegally by re-pledging the gold both in the Company and in Manappuram creating series of gold loan accounts in his name using his own KYC. In the Company, there are 67 gold loan accounts in the name of petitioner, out of which huge cash to the tune of several lakhs of rupees were availed. Fourteen fake gold loan accounts were created in the name of the petitioner in Manappuram from which more than rupees twenty four lakhs were taken as loan. Every time cash transaction was preferred than cashless transaction in order to suppress digital evidence taking the plea of cashless transaction beyond two lakhs and huge loan incurred by the petitioner was given to accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy in cash and some amount was retained by him and an Audi Car was also gifted by the petitioner to accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy. Cash of Rs.2,36,000/- (two lakhs thirty six thousand) and one Vivo mobile phone were seized from the petitioner. The investigation further revealed that fake accounts in the name of the petitioner was tracked at Manappuram belonging to the Company and bank transaction was made from accused Lala’s ICICI bank account to the account of the petitioner to the tune of Rs.14,72,796/- (fourteen lakhs seventy two thousand seven hundred ninety six). In the identification process, the gold ornaments pledged at the Company belonging to Manas Kumar Rout, petitioner Saroj Kumar Prusty, Dhanjay Dagra, Soumya Ranjan Muduli, Sukanta Mohanty, Venktesh Sethi were found in the name of the petitioner at Manappuram in different loan accounts. The petitioner used his own mobile phone to get new loans by pledging the gold of the Company in his own name in connivance with the other employees and agents and received loans of huge amount to that effect and also received SMS from the server of IIFL regarding premium payment and over passed the same as his loans were getting renewed from time to time by the employees creating new loan accounts merging the old one. From the call detail reports, it appears that there were frequent telephonic contracts from each of the phone numbers of accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy to the petitioner.

During investigation, the Investigating Officer seized 795.600 grams of gold from the Manappuram pledged in the name of the petitioner and seized one Audi Car from Lala Amrut Sagar Roy gifted by the petitioner as per payment made. There was also a seizure of cash of Rs.2,36,000/- (two lakhs thirty six thousand) with a mobile phone from the petitioner.

During investigation, it was revealed that the gold items seized from the accounts of Lala correspond to be original accounts of Manas Kumar Rout, petitioner Saroj Kumar Prusty, Dhanjay Dagra, Soumya Ranjan Muduli, Sukanta Mohanty, Venktesh Sethi and it was found in the name of petitioner Lalit Kumar Soni at Manappuram. The investigation further revealed that huge amount has been transferred from the account of accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy to the account of the petitioner. During investigation, multiple loan accounts with details including phone numbers, amount pledged, the identity of customer and year of pledging, amount disbursed etc. both of the Company and Manappuram were found.

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, Deepak Kumar Sahoo and Sitanshu Sekhar Ota. The witnesses, namely, Manas Kumar Rout, Dhanjay Kumar Dagra and Venktesh Sethi identified their pledged gold in the account of petitioner. The witnesses, namely, Santosh Kumar Sahoo & Sumit Dutta stated about seizure of cash of Rs.2.36 lakhs (two lakhs thirty six thousand) from the petitioner.

Accusation against the petitioner Debasish Hazra (BLAPL No. 1400 of 2021):

During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer found that the petitioner Debasish Hazra was having no ostensible means of occupation and he was working as an agent of accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy, petitioner Nilima, Satyam and others and taking loan in case of necessity by pledging gold of the Company and later on he conspired with accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy, petitioner Nilima Lenka, Satyam and others to take loan illegally by re-pledging the gold of the Company and Manappuram creating series of gold loan accounts in his name using his own KYC. The investigation further revealed that there were twelve gold loan accounts in the name of petitioner, out of which huge cash to the tune of more than rupees ten lakhs was taken and forty nine fake gold loan accounts were created in the name of petitioner in Manappuram in which more than rupees seventy seven lakhs was taken as loan and every time cash transaction was preferred than cashless transaction in order to suppress digital evidence taking the plea of cashless transaction beyond rupees two lakhs. The investigation further revealed that as the petitioner was working as an agent of the accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy, he was gifted with the personal bike of accused Lala and the same was also seized from the petitioner during his arrest and the same was utilized by him on behalf of accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy as his agent. During investigation, the Investigating Officer collected CDR data, which was matching with the location of the accused persons with their frequent conversations, which proved criminal conspiracy among them. The investigation further revealed that fake accounts in the name of the petitioner were tracked at Manappuram belonging to the Company and one kilogram and one hundred fifteen grams of gold was seized at Manappuram. The investigation further revealed that bank transaction was made from accused Lala’s ICICI bank account to the account of the petitioner for Rs.3,00,999/- (three lakhs nine hundred ninety nine). During the identification process, the gold ornaments pledged at the Company belonged to Shyamsundar Ghosh, Kirti Ch. Samal, Dhananjaya Ku Dagra, Asit Ku. Sahu, Sumanta Mulia and others including the petitioner Saroj Kumar Prusty were found to have been pledged in the name of the petitioner at Manappuram. The investigation further revealed that petitioner used his own mobile phone and with other phones to get the new loans by pledging the gold of the Company in his own name in connivance with the other employees and agents and received loans of huge amount and also received SMS from the server of IIFL regarding premium payment and over passed the same as his loans were getting renewed from time to time by the employees creating new loan accounts merging the old one.

During the course of investigation, 1Kg. 115 grams of gold was seized from Manappuram pledged in the name of the petitioner and one CBZ bike was also seized from his possession. The investigation further revealed that the gold items seized from the account of accused Lala corresponded to the original account of the customers of the Company, namely, Shamsundar Ghosh, Kirti Ch. Samal, Dhanjaya Ku. Dagara, Asit Ku. Sahu, Sumanta Mulia and others including the petitioner Debasish Hazra was found in the name of the petitioner Saroj Prusty at Manappuram. The investigation further revealed that an amount of Rs.3,00,999/- was transferred from the account of accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy to the account of the petitioner and multiple loan accounts of the petitioner with details including phone numbers, amount pledged, amount disbursed etc. were found to have been created both in the Company as well as at Manappuram.

Confessional statement of accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy implicating the petitioner regarding deposit of gold at Manappuram stood corroborated from the statements of Area Manager Sameer Debnath, Deepak Kumar Sahoo and Sitanshu Sekhar Ota. The witnesses namely, Shyamsundar Ghosh, Kirti Ch. Samal, Dhanjay Kumar Dagra, Asit Kumar Sahu, Sumanta Mulia and others also stated regarding identification of their pledged gold in the account of petitioner. The independent witnesses, namely, Girija Prasad Sahoo & Ankit Agarwal also stated regarding involvement of petitioner in the alleged occurrence.

Accusation against the petitioner Pitambar Sahoo (BLAPL No. 344 of 2021):

During investigation, on the disclosure made by the accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy, seizure of gold in 20 nos. of customers loan account was made at Manappuram which were created by the petitioner Pitambar Sahoo as Branch Manager of Manappuram. He pledged these jewellery in connivance with the employees of the Company such as accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy, petitioner Nilima Lenka, Satyam Pradhan and others from where stolen/misappropriated ornaments of the Company to the tune of 6 kgs 439 grams were recovered in presence of the petitioner, Area Manager, Zonal Manager of Manappuram and other witnesses. It is also revealed that multiple gold loan accounts were created in the branch by pledging the stolen/ misappropriated gold of the Company in the name of different customers/agents of accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy, petitioner Nilima Lenka, Satyam Pradhan and others of the Company with the assistance of the petitioner for which the loan accounts of fake loan account holders were seized. The investigation further revealed that by pledging the gold, huge loan was sanctioned by the petitioner as the Branch Manager of Manappuram and misappropriated and siphoned off to the tune of crores of rupees and the same has been distributed among the unscrupulous people with their unholy nexus hatching a criminal conspiracy thereby cheating both the companies, i.e. IIFL and Manappuram causing huge pecuniary loss to them. The stolen gold of the Company pledged in the names of Amresh Das, Anisha Khatun, Rabindra Kumar Sahoo, Nikhil Kumar Dey were pledged in the name of Nityananda Sahoo (brother of the petitioner Pitambar Sahoo) and that of Anurag Tiberwal and others were pledged in the name of Golap Sahoo (mother of Pitambar Sahoo). The original phone number and photograph etc. were provided by the family members of the petitioner and some other gold loan account holders genuinely with their direct knowledge with the intention of grabbing the cash released out of the pledged gold. The investigation further revealed that for opening of an account, the OTP generated from the system of company was shared with the bankers to facilitate gold loan and the subsequent message regarding payment of premium etc. was also communicated through SMS in those mobile phones and unless there was criminal conspiracy, congregation and connivance among all the accused persons with the petitioner being the Branch Manager of Manappuram, it would not have been possible for the family members of the petitioner, staff of the Company and others to avail the gold loan and thus the petitioner played a key role in the entire episode. It is further revealed during verification of KYC and loan documents that the photograph of the petitioner was visible in the loan account of his bother, namely, Nityananda Sahoo and the same has been created fraudulently. The investigation further revealed that accused Lala has paid an amount of Rs.13,54,191/- to Manapurram Branch through IMPS, which was in the good knowledge of the petitioner for repayment of premium against fake loan account made in order to show the accounts alive thereby nobody could suspect him and those accounts would not be put to auction. The investigation further revealed that from the call detail reports, it was found that there was frequent telephonic communication between the accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy and the petitioner, which was also another proof of their conspiracy and attachment on regular basis.

During the course of investigation, 6 Kg 439 gram of gold was seized from the Manappuram pledged in the name of 20 nos. of account holders including that of the co-accused persons in this case. The investigation further revealed that gold items seized from the account of Nityananda Sahoo (brother of the petitioner Pitambar Sahoo) at Manappuram corresponded to the original accounts of Amresh Das, Anisha Khatun, Rabindra Kumar Sahoo, Sangeeta Saha, Sofia Parwin, Nikhil Kumar Dey, which were pledged by them in the Company. Similarly gold items seized from the account of Golap Sahu (mother of Pitamber Sahoo) at Manapurram branch corresponded to the original accounts of Anurag Tiberwal and others of the company. It is also revealed that multiple loan accounts with details including phone numbers, amount of gold pledged, the identity of customer and year of pledging, amount disbursed etc. have been created at Manappuram in respect of Nityananda Sahoo and Golap Sahu. The investigation further revealed that on verification of the customer history details in the loan application in respect of Nityananda Sahoo, the photograph of the petitioner appeared.

The witnesses, namely, Sameer Debnath, Moppala Raju, Deepak Kumar Sahoo and Sitanshu Sekhar Ota have stated regarding production of gold for seizure, which was deposited by accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy with the help of the petitioner in Manappuram. The witnesses namely, Basanta Kumar Behera and Meena Behera, who are the employees of the Company also stated regarding involvement of the petitioner and the main accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy.

Accusation against the petitioner Pabitra Kumar Behera (BLAPL No. 695 of 2021):

During course of investigation, on the basis of confessional statement of the petitioner Santosh Bhoi, the petitioner Pabitra Kumar Behera was arrested and on the basis of his confessional statement recorded under section 27 Indian Evidence Act, stolen gold ornaments of the Company weighing about 108.140 grams were recovered from his possession, which were in identifiable polythene packet of the Company. Among the seized gold, one item was identified to have been pledged gold of one customer of the company, namely, Sumanta Kumar Mulia, who identified his property from the seized gold. During the course of investigation, a Bajaj Pulsar bike with fake number of the petitioner belonging to him vide Registration No.OD-05-U2040 and other incriminating materials such as one Realme Smartphone, Mi android, one Jio keypad phone, one Samsung Duos mobile phone and the wearing apparels used during the commission of crime were recovered from his house. On the basis of the CCTV footage relating to the operation, inspection of the seized vehicle used in the crime was conducted by MVI of RTO, Cuttack, who opined the registration number was tampered with and from the chassis number of the bike, it was ascertained that the vehicle was registered in the name of the petitioner and the same was used in the crime, which is evident from the CCTV footage. It is also revealed from the statements of witnesses that petitioner along with others were present at Bell view chhak. The investigation further revealed that the petitioner was maintaining a lavish life style in the village, which created a suspicion about his activities.

During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer relied upon the statements of the witnesses namely, Soumya Subhadarsan, Sumit Dutta, Ashutosh Parida, Naresh Sahu, Sandeep Behera, Sambit Kumar Das and Abinash Parida and others. The Investigating Officer also seized the memorandum of identification in respect of the petitioner, which corresponded to be the original accounts of Sumanta Kumar Mulia, a customer of the Company.

Accusation against the petitioner Nilima Lenka (BLAPL No. 1458 of 2021):

During course of investigation, on the basis of statements of other accused persons regarding the complicity of the petitioner Nilima Lenka in the crime, she was arrested and her confessional statement was recorded and she gave the recovery of stolen gold ornaments of the Company of about 90 grams along with cash of Rs.53,700/-, one Redmi mobile phone from her house. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer seized a fixed deposit certificate of Rs.7,00,000/- made in the joint name of the petitioner and one Allad Roshan Kiran, the fiancé of the petitioner, which was invested by the petitioner soon after her marriage was fixed and after the petitioner was arrested, the said Federal Bank account was converted to a single account. The investigation further revealed regarding transaction of an amount of Rs.1,69,310/- from account of accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy to the account of the petitioner. The investigation further revealed that the petitioner was the key holder of the vaults of the Company along with kingpin accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy apart from her regular turn and she had uninterrupted access to the vaults of the Company and was aware of the transfer of the gold from the vaults since long. The investigation further revealed that the petitioner was also aware about the staged commission of dacoity in the bank prior to the occurrence and had telephonic conversation with one of the dacoits, namely, Ranjan Kumar Behera, which was operated in the Company at the instance of the accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy and petitioner Ranjan Kumar Behera. It is also revealed during the investigation that apart from accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy, the petitioner was present and helped the dacoits to carry away the gold packets from the vaults of the Company, but pretended about the robbery. The investigation further revealed that the petitioner had helped in pledging the gold of the Company by creating loan for accused Prakash Kumar Sahoo and Raj Kishore Sahoo. The investigation further revealed that gold loan accounts were created in the names of Raj Kishore Sahoo and Prakash Kumar Sahoo at Manappuram with the active knowledge of the petitioner. From the call detail reports of petitioner Ranjan Kumar Behera, it revealed that he was having conversation with the petitioner prior to the occurrence.

The witnesses namely, Basanta Kumar Behera and Meena Behera, who are the employees of the Company also stated regarding involvement of the petitioner and the main accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy. The statements of gold customers, namely, Anurag Tiberwal, Asit Kumar Sahoo also indicated regarding the implication of the petitioner in shifting their gold from the Company to Manappuram in connivance with the accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy.

Accusation against the petitioner Ranjan Kumar Behera (BLAPL No. 1942 of 2021):

During course of investigation, on the basis of the statement of the accused petitioner Santosh Bhoi, the petitioner Ranjan Kumar Behera @ Bapi was arrested and on the basis of his confessional statement, gold ornaments weighing about 2 kgs. 12 grams were recovered, which belonged to the Company along with other articles. The investigation further revealed that the recovered gold ornaments were identified by the customers of the Company, namely, Prakash Mahapatra, Monalisha Mulia, Manoj Karmakar, Sanjaya Kumar Moda, Sunil Kumar Sethi, Shyamsundar Ghosh. The petitioner made criminal conspiracy at his NANDA factory with accused Raj Kishore Sahoo, Prakash Chandra Sahoo and petitioner Pabitra Behera by tampering the registration number of the bikes and provided his own Honda Dream Yoga bike for commission of dacoity, which was used by accused Raju and Santosh. The investigation further revealed that prior to the commission of the offence, the petitioner, petitioner Harmohan Dash, accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy, accused Raj Kishore Sahoo along with some friends of accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy congregated together at Baideswar Temple at Choudwar and hatched a criminal conspiracy to commit dacoity in the Company to help accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy and others in order to save them from audit. The congregation of the petitioner with others at Choudwar prior to the occurrence also fortified from the statement of temple priest and call detail reports. It is also revealed during investigation that an amount of Rs.4,96,604/- was transferred to the account of the petitioner by the accused Lala.

The witnesses, namely, Shyamsundar Ghosh, Asit Kumar Sahu, Soumya Sinha identified their pledged gold in the Company, which were recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The statements of the independent witnesses, namely, Jayanta Panda and Kailash Ch. Panda, who are the priests of the temple, revealed regarding the conspiracy made by the present petitioner along with others prior to the occurrence.

Accusation against the petitioner Harmohan Dash (BLAPL No. 2956 of 2021):

During the course of investigation, it is revealed that the petitioner Harmohan Dash was the key conspirator in the case and he knew accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy since 2011 while working as Security Guard at IIFL, Bajrakabati Road and later he became security supervisor, however he continued to come in contact with accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy, petitioner Nilima Lenka, Satyam and others at the Company and usually brought people to produce their KYC for creating fake gold loan accounts. He was having a series of gold loan accounts both in the Company and in Mannpuram Gold Loan Finance Company at Choudhury Bazar Branch. During the course of investigation, 28.700 grams of gold was seized from Manapurram Gold Loan Finance Company at Choudhury Bazar Branch pledged in his name. It was also revealed that prior to the commission of the offence, the petitioner along with accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy, petitioner Ranjan Kumar Behera, accused Raj Kishore Sahoo and some friends of accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy met each other at Baideswar Temple at Choudwar and hatched the criminal conspiracy to commit dacoity in the Company to help the accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy and others to save them from audit. It was also revealed from the statements of the temple priests as well as the CDR data matching with location of accused persons was collected specifying their presence at Choudwar on 17.11.2020. The investigation further revealed that out of the illegal money incurred by petitioner Harmohan Dash through accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy, he invested the same by purchasing two cars, one Maruti Swift VDI and Maruti Ertiga Car, which have been seized. It is also revealed during investigation that the said two cars were used to transport the accused persons to Baideswar temple for hatching criminal conspiracy, which fact was admitted by accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy and other accused persons. It is also revealed during investigation that an amount of Rs.2,20,054/- was transferred to the SB account of the petitioner by the accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy. The investigation further revealed that the petitioner used to procure different persons from other areas to give employment in his security agency but used their documents with the help of the employees of the Company to avail loan by creating fake gold loan accounts. This fact is also fortified from the statements of Lipun Behera and Suman Mandal in connection with Lalbag P.S. Case No.308/2021. The statements of the witnesses, namely, Deepak Kumar Sahoo, Sitanshu Sekhar Ota, Lila Baiduria Patra, Bijaya Ku. Mahapatra indicate regarding seizure of gold illegally removed from the Company and pledged at Manappuram. The statements of the witnesses, namely, Sumit Dutta, Santosh Sahoo, Santosh Kumar Saha and Kailash Ch. Mahanty revealed regarding the conspiracy of the petitioner and others in the crime.

Accusation against the petitioner Santosh Bhoi @ Bapi (BLAPL No. 1524 of 2021):

During the course of investigation, it is revealed that being directed by the petitioner Ranjan Kumar Behera as per the instruction of accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy, the petitioner Santosh Bhoi along with three others came from Bilahata, Biswanathpur, Kisannagar in two bikes to commit dacoity in the Company. The investigation further revealed that for commission of the crime, the petitioner Pabitra Kumar Behera and Prakash Sahoo used one Pulsar bike, which belonged to the petitioner Pabitra Kumar Behera and accused Raj Kishore Sahoo and the petitioner used another Honda Dream Yoga by using fake number plates by tampering the registration numbers using Cello tapes. The investigation further revealed that both the bikes with fake number plates were utilized in the commission of the crime and those were recovered at the instance of the petitioner and others, which was evident from the CCTV footage and the ownership of the bikes as per the report of the M.V.I, R.T.O., Cuttack. The petitioner was duly identified in the photo T.I. parade, which was conducted in the presence of the Executive Magistrate. The investigation further revealed that after establishing the identity of petitioner, his house search was conducted and stolen gold ornaments of the Company weighing about 46.390 grams were recovered at his instance being wrapped in the polythene pouch of the Company. During the course of investigation, on the basis of his confessional statement, the wearing apparels such as cap used at the time of commission of offence was seized, which correlated with the CCTV footage. It is also revealed during investigation that there was frequent communication between the petitioner with other accused persons regarding the criminal conspiracy at village Bilahat. It is also revealed from the statements of witnesses that the petitioner along with others was present at Bell view chhak. The investigation further revealed that the petitioner being an Auto driver was maintaining a lavish life style in the village, which created a suspicion about his activities. It was also revealed during investigation that the petitioner was the pillion rider with the accused Rajkishore Sahu for committing dacoity. The statement of the witness Ashutosh Pradhan also revealed the presence of the petitioner with accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy at Bell view Chhak. The statements of the witnesses, namely, Nageswar Behera, Kulamani Behera, Soumya Subhadarsan and Sumit Dutta indicate regarding the seizure of robbed gold of the company recovered from the petitioner and others. The independent witnesses, namely, Rohit Bala and Deepak Kumar Behera are the identifying witnesses of accused petitioner.

The Investigating Officer submitted first charge sheet on 23.03.2021 against the petitioners under different sections of the Indian Penal Code and other offences as already stated above keeping the investigation open.

5. Mr. Soura Chandra Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Saroj Kumar Prusty in BLAPL No. 822 of 2021 submitted that the petitioner is a jewellery shop owner and he is in judicial custody since 27.11.2020. He had availed some loan for his business purpose and he was not instrumental in the fake gold loan accounts opened in his name and there is no clinching materials available on record to show that the petitioner had connived with the co-accused persons either in the misappropriation of ornaments of the customers pledged in the Company to avail gold loan or in the staged dacoity and therefore, the bail application may be favourably considered particularly when first charge sheet has already been submitted and all the relevant documents have been seized and there is no chance of absconding of the petitioner.

Mr. Avijit Patnaik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Lalit Kumar Soni in BLAPL No. 991 of 2021 submitted that the petitioner is a jewellery shop owner and he is in judicial custody since 24.11.2020 and there is no clinching materials on record to show that the petitioner had connived with the coaccused persons in the misappropriation of ornaments of the customers pledged in the Company to avail the gold loan or in the commission of dacoity and he was not aware about the opening of fake gold loan accounts in his name and therefore, the bail application may be favourably considered.

Mr. Devashis Panda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Debasish Hazra in BLAPL No. 1400 of 2021 submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 01.12.2020. He further submitted that the petitioner was never working as an agent of the accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy and the petitioner Nilima Lenka, rather loan accounts were opened in his name by the said accused persons without his knowledge and lakhs of rupees were misappropriated collusively by those accused persons and the petitioner has got no role in the entire transaction. It is further submitted that 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.

Mr. Dharanidhar Nayak, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner Pitambar Sahoo submitted that the petitioner was the Branch Manager of Manappuram and he is in judicial custody since 26.11.2020. It is further contended that the main allegations are against co-accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy and petitioner Nilima Lenka, who were processing all the documentation works relating to grant of gold loan of the customers in the Company and sanction used to be made to the loan from the Head Office and thereafter cash was getting disbursed to the customers. It is further contended that 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 he was also not aware that the pledged gold in Manappuram was the pledged gold in the operative accounts of the Company and therefore, the bail application may be considered favourably.

Mr. Dayananda Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Pabitra Mohan Behera in BLAPL No. 695 of 2021 submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 24.11.2020 and he has got no criminal antecedent and he has not participated in the stage managed dacoity, which was organized by accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy. It is further contended that the allegation regarding recovery of 108.140 grams of gold ornaments kept in the cover of the Company from the possession of the petitioner is not borne out from the seizure list attached to the charge sheet. Learned counsel further contended that proper photo identification of the ornaments has not been made and the petitioner was not a party to the conspiracy stated to have been held at Baideswar Temple, Choudwar. It is further contended that the petitioner is a daily wage earner and there is no clinching material on record to show that the petitioner is in any way involved in the misappropriation of ornaments pledged in the Company and therefore, the bail application may be favourably considered.

Mr. D.P.Dhal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner Nilima Lenka in BLAPL No. 1458 of 2021 argued that the petitioner was working as a gold appraiser of the Company and she is in judicial custody since 25.11.2020. It is further contended that the petitioner is an unmarried lady and was working in the Company since long and the alleged occurrence has taken place beyond her knowledge. It is further argued that the offence under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code is not attracted against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the allegation of the prosecution that she helped the dacoits in robbing away the gold pouch is not correct and she has been falsely entangled in the case. It is further contended that though in the charge sheet, it is mentioned that the petitioner was aware about the activities going on in the Company by the co-accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy and that she had failed to discharge her 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.

Mr. Lalitendu Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Ranjan Kumar Behera @ Bapi in BLAPL No. 1942 of 2021 submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 25.11.2020. He further submitted that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedents and there are no material regarding his involvement in the commission of dacoity. It is further contended that the allegation regarding recovery of robbed gold of the Company from the possession of the petitioner is not borne out of the seizure list attached to the charge sheet. Learned counsel further contended that the petitioner was not a party to the conspiracy held at Baideswar Temple, Choudwar. It is further submitted that there is no clinching materials on record to show that the petitioner is in any way involved in the misappropriation of ornaments pledged in the Company and therefore, the bail application may be favourably considered.

Mr. Saroj Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Harmohan Dash in BLAPL No. 2956 of 2021 submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 25.11.2020. He further submitted that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedents and there is no material regarding his involvement in the commission of alleged dacoity and there is no clinching materials on record to show that the petitioner is in any way involved in the misappropriation of ornaments pledged in the Company and therefore, the bail application may be favourably considered.

Mr. B.K. Ragada, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Santosh Bhoi in BLAPL No. 1524 of 2021 submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 25.11.2020. He further submitted that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedents and there are no materials regarding his involvement in the commission of dacoity. It is further contended that the allegation regarding recovery of robbed gold of the Company from the possession of the petitioner is not borne out of the record. Learned counsel further contended that the petitioner was not a party to the conspiracy held at Baideswar Temple, Choudwar. It is further submitted that there is no clinching materials on record to show that the petitioner is in any way involved in the misappropriation of ornaments pledged in the Company 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 Ayan Saha Roy, 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 accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy in connivance with the petitioner Nilima Lenka and others including the Branch Manager came to fore. They have also siphoned off the money received from the customers towards closure of their loan account. During the course of investigation, statements have been recorded by the Investigating Officer in order to substantiate how the plan to commit the broad day light dacoity in the Company was chalked out. Some other statements were also placed to highlight the involvement of the employees of the Company in the conspiracy to commit the crime. It is contended that without the connivance and active participation of those employees, the dacoity in the company would not have been possible so smoothly. It is argued that call detail reports of the accused persons, seizure of incriminating articles from the petitioners, seizure of gold ornaments pledged in the company and cash from the possession of the petitioners, identification of the recovered gold ornaments by the gold loan account holders of the company, huge unlawful cash transaction to the accounts of different accused persons from the account of the accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy, conduct of the petitioner Pitambar Sahoo in pledging huge quantity of gold of the Company in the name of his mother and brother in Manappuram fraudulently in connivance with accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy, prima facie makes out the offences against the petitioners and at this stage, when the investigation is still under progress and final charge sheet is yet to be submitted and it is a dacoity of unique in nature and huge gold ornaments and cash are yet to be recovered, 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 the IIFL submitted that in connivance of all the petitioners, economic fraud has been committed in the Company and being scared of being caught during audit, dacoity was staged very aptly and thereby innocent customers have suffered huge loss and the Company 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, [LQ/SC/1987/328] Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy -Vrs.- CBI reported in (2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases 439 [LQ/SC/2013/568] 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 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.

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 by breaching the security guidelines of the Company, easy access was made to the vaults frequently and gold ornaments of the customers pledged for availing loan were siphoned off. It became possible on account of connivance between some of the employees of the Company and the Branch Manager in the act of misappropriation and they were personally benefitted. The pledged gold of the Company were re-pledged in the Company creating new fake loan accounts and huge loan was availed in the names of fake persons. The pledged gold of the Company were taken out of the vaults unauthorizedly and illegally and those were pledged in Manappuram by creating fake loan accounts and even in the names of the brother and mother of the petitioner Pitambar Sahoo, who was the Branch Manager of Manappuram, fake loan accounts were opened utilizing the pledged gold of the Company and huge loan was availed. Slowly the situation went out of control on account of continuous illegalities committed in that process and accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy who seems to have master minded all the illegal activities and paid huge amount to the accused persons to cover up the crime, apprehended being caught during audit, for which he in connivance with some of the co-accused persons chalked out a plan to commit a staged dacoity in the Company to show as if gold ornaments were taken away by the dacoits and discussions in that respect were made in Baideswar Temple at Choudwar. Another congregation took place at Nanda factory premises of the petitioner Ranjan Kumar Behera. The number plates of the bikes used for commission of the crime were tampered with in advance to evade detection. After successful execution of crime with the assistance of some of the accused employees of the Company, respective shares were taken by the accused persons and lion’s share was deposited with the petitioner Ranjan Kumar Behera @ Bapi who helped accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy very keenly in the commission of the crime. The money transaction between the accused persons, recovery of gold ornaments of the Company and cash from the possession of the accused persons so also from Manappuram and seizure of other incriminating articles during investigation, CCTV footage showing the involvement of the some of the petitioners in the crime prima facie established their involvement. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding innocence of the petitioners and non-availability of prima facie case against them are not at all acceptable as there is no dearth of materials in the case records collected during course of investigation to show their involvement in the crime.

9. In view of the foregoing discussions, availability of prima facie materials on record in the form of oral and documentary evidence against the petitioners in support of the accusation leveled against them as per charge sheet, the nature and gravity of the accusation, the illegal purpose for which the dacoity was stage managed in the IIFL, Nayasarak Branch to cover up the misappropriation of huge pledged gold ornaments of the customers from the vaults apprehending the same to come to light during audit and the manner in which the plan was chalked out to commit the crime, the way the plan was executed successfully without any hindrance in the broad day light in the busiest area of the millennium city of Cuttack, the roles played by the petitioners at different stages, recovery of gold ornaments of IIFL and other incriminating articles from the possession of the petitioners, huge financial loss suffered by the Company on account of such crime, at this stage when many more important areas of the case are still under investigation and many vital links in the crime are yet to be unearthed and there is possibility of derailing the investigation in case of grant of bail to the petitioners, in the larger interest of public and State, I am not inclined to release the petitioners on bail.

10. Accordingly, all the bail applications being devoid of merits, stand rejected.