Date of judgement:
26 April 2021
Bench:
Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo
Parties:
Appellant – Ashwini Kumar Patra
Respondent – Republic Of India
Subject
The following case involves the discretion of the court in granting bail to a person accused of a serious economic offence involving criminal misappropriation of a large amount of public money.
Overview
- Roop Lal Meena, Deputy GM at the Union Bank of India, made a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, CBI alleging that 3 of the bank officials including Ashwini Kumar Patra (petitioner), in the year 2017, had entered into a criminal conspiracy and sanctioned a housing loan to private builders based on fictitious documents and without any mandatory verification.
- It was also alleged that the disbursed loan amounts were diverted by the accused builders for other purposes and this act of the petitioner had caused wrongful loss amounting to Rs.5,19,16,340/- to the Bank and a wrongful gain to themselves. The CBI took cognizance of the issue and investigated the matter.
- Subsequently, the CBI recorded the statements, seized the documents, arrested the petitioner, and submitted the charge sheet against him under Sections 409, 420, and 471 r.w. 120-B of the IPC and Section 13(2) r.w. 13(1)(d) of the 1988 Act. An application of bail was made by the petitioner before the learned Special Judge CBI, but it was rejected. Hence, they appeared before the High Court of Orissa.
- The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had never misused public money in any manner before this. He also pointed out that, when the incident took place in 2017, the petitioner was only the Assistant Manager (Marketing) and was only partially responsible for processing and inspecting the grant of loans. He finally submitted that the petitioner is a local man and has no intention of absconding or evidence tampering, hence his bail must be considered by the court sympathetically.
- The Special Public Prosecutor, CBI argued that bail shall not be granted because it is a case of a serious economic offence. He contended that the petitioner had deliberately breached the bank norms in the disbursement of loans. He also said that the intention of the petitioner was mala fide because he mentioned the false net worth of the borrowers. The quantum of misappropriation amount being very high, the counsel urged the court to reject the bail application to avoid any witness tampering.
Legal Provisions
- Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code – Public servant or banker committing criminal breach of trust.
- Section 420 of IPC – Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
- Section 471 of IPC – Fraudulently using forged documents as genuine.
- Section 120B of IPC – Punishment for criminal conspiracy.
- Section 13(1)(d) and Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Criminal misconduct by a public servant and punishment thereto.
Issues
- Should bail be granted to the petitioner who is accused of economic offences of such serious nature?
Judgement
- The High Court of Orissa considered the matter to be very grave and serious and that it would affect the country's economy as a whole, as it involves deep-rooted conspiracy and appropriation of public funds. Keeping this in mind, the court made a reference to the case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy.
- In the aforementioned case, it was held by the honorable Supreme Court that while granting bail, the court must bear in mind the nature of the accusation and the evidence in support of that. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the court must fully consider the repercussions of granting relief to the accused.
- The court held that it is a well-settled legal proposition that comprehensive examination of evidence and lengthy discussion on the merits of the case is not essential while granting bail. The Supreme Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar V. Rajesh Ranjan reiterated that the court while granting bail shall judiciously exercise its power of discretion and not as a matter of course.
- After listening to both the parties, the court held a prima facie view that the petitioner had failed to observe due diligence. He had also gone against the instructions of the banks and conveniently provided aid to the borrowers, which clearly establishes criminal conspiracy. Moreover, the court said that the contentions raised by the petitioners' counsel for the grant of bail were not convincing at all.
- Finally, the bail application was rejected by the court stating that the case involves a deep-rooted criminal conspiracy in committing an economic offence causing crores of losses to the bank. Not only this, the court remarked that the crime was committed in a calculated and organized manner and if bail is granted it creates a reasonable apprehension of witness and evidence tampering.
Conclusion
In Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012), the Supreme Court had held that granting or refusal of bail is at the discretion of the court and must be used prudently. In economic offences, where a huge amount of public money is involved, the court must pay attention to the larger interest of the public and the state.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
