Baishakhi Saha vs State Of Odisha

G. Satapathy, J.

This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Bhubaneswar EOW PS Case No.08 of 2026 corresponding to CT Case No.08 of 2026 pending in the file of learned Presiding Officer Designated Court under the OPID Act, Cuttack, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss. 409/ 420/ 467/ 468/ 471/ 120-B of the IPC.

The allegation against the Petitioner is that she being the Service Manager of State Bank of India, Rail Vihar Branch, Bhubaneswar during the year 2022-2023 in connivance with the Branch Manager, middle men and others have used and entertained the fake and forged loan documents as genuine and processed /recommended 143 Xpress Credit loan (personal loan) and 4 Xpress Credit loan as employee of SBI Fortune Tower Branch causing loss of a colossal sum of Rs. 6,53,30,000/- to the Bank.

Heard, Mr. Amitav Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.C. Pradhan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in the matter and perused the record together with documents (i) RTI information,(ii)certified copy of the orders by which co-accused have been granted bail, (iii) certified copy of charge sheet & (iv) the copy of the order passed in ABLAPL No. 8803 of 2026 and 16 other bail applications.

After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, no doubt there appears allegation against the Petitioner for processing and recommending 147 Xpress Credit loans as an employee of SBI in two Branches i.e. Rail Vihar Branch and Fortune Tower Branch causing loss of approximately Rs. 6.53 Crores, but it is found in the copy of the charge sheet at paragraph-18.18 that no suspicious transaction was detected in the account of the Petitioner. What is significant is that in paragraph-18.17 of the charge sheet, the name of the beneficiaries of ill-gotten money has been enlisted and it is stated therein that 12 middle men have received certain amounts in their accounts, but no such money transaction has admittedly been found in the account of the Petitioner. In the course of submission, Mr. Tripathy has submitted that out of the 142 loans sanctioned to different persons, 46 accounts have already been closed and out of the remaining 96 loan accounts with outstanding Rs. 2.46 Crores, 56 accounts with Rs. 1.19 Crores outstanding repayment is being adhered to and thereby, the loss to the bank has already been minimized, but it is neither desirable nor advisable to give any finding on merit at the stage of consideration of bail, since the law that has been settled is that detail analysis of evidence and elaborate documentation is not permissible at the stage of consideration of bail. Besides, whether the act of the Petitioner is liable for negligence or does it constitute the ingredients of offence can be ascertained in full Fledged trial, but not at this stage and this Court, thereby, refrains itself from opining anything on merit at this stage. In this situation, it is not acceptable to opine at this stage that the Petitioner is liable for negligence, but not for the substantive offences which is the duty of the trial Court.

Additionally, it is found that the Petitioner has allegedly accepted fake and forged documents and processed the loans along with co-accused persons, but the Petitioner has annexed the copy of the result of the Departmental Proceeding initiated against her under Annexure-3 which reveals that for the selfsame allegation of illegality in sanction of Xpress Credit loans, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner in which the Petitioner has been demoted to the next lower post with reduction of scale of pay to JMGS-I Grade and in such enquiry, the Petitioner Baishakhi Saha was held liable for lapses/irregularity which were serious in nature, but no finding on criminal charge of misappropriation or cheating has been found against her. In the meantime, charge sheet has already been submitted, but the pre-arrest bail application of co-accused has been albeit turned down by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court except allowing the pre-arrest bail to one accused namely Bhagyabati Gahan, but in the meantime, co-accused Smruti Ranjan Mohanty, Sarita Paikaray, Charubala Gandasena and Pradipta Kumar Lenka have already been granted bail by the Court in seisin over the matter. The Petitioner is a lady and, thereby, she is entitled to the first proviso appended to Sec. 480 of BNSS. Further, no materials were produced before the Court to show that the fabricated documents were in fact prepared by the Petitioner or that seals to fabricate documents were recovered from her. The primary allegation against the petitioner is for receiving forged documents to sanction Xpress Credit loans and the fake documents comprise of the Employment Certificate purportedly issued by different companies which were in fact not issued by the said Companies, but accepting such documents, neither absolves the liability of the Petitioner nor makes her liable for the criminal charge, unless the same was done with requisite mensrea which is subject to assessment in the trial because the mensrea to commit the offence is very important and that can be ascertained in a full-fledged trial. In addition, bail should not be confused with acquittal of the accused, since bail is temporary release from custody on the assurance of the accused to attend the trial by binding himself or herself with surety. In this case, the prosecution heavily relies on documents to implicate the petitioner for the charge, but such documents being already collected by the Investigating Agency, there is hardly any chance of the Petitioner getting any opportunity to tamper with such material documents. There is no document to suggest that the petitioner has been removed from the Bank, rather as per the order passed in Departmental Proceeding, the Petitioner has only been demoted to the next higher grade.

In the aforesaid facts and circumstance and on consideration of materials placed on record together with the role as alleged against the Petitioner and there being no material to suggest the petitioner would abscond or pose threat to the witnesses, if released on bail and lastly, taking into account the inherent right of the accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty at the trial, this Court without expressing any view on merits admits the petitioner to bail.

Hence, the bail application of the petitioner stands allowed and the petitioner is allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) only with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin of the case on such terms and conditions as deem fit and proper by it with following condition:-

Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. A soft copy of this order be immediately communicated to the concerned Court, who shall afterwards communicate the same to the concerned Jail through e-mail for reference.