Sanjita Moharana & Ors. vs State Of Odisha

V. Narasingh, J.

Since all the ABLAPLs relate to EOW P.S. Case No. 3 of 2026, on the consent of the parties, they are taken up together and are disposed of by this common order.

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

The Petitioners are seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with C.T. Case No. 04 of 2026 pending on the file of the learned Presiding Officer, Designated Court under the OPID Act, Cuttack, arising out of Economic Offence Wing P.S. Case No. 03 of 2026 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 316(5)^{11.316. Criminal breach of trust.— (5) Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.}, 318(4)^{22.318. Cheating.— (4) Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven ye}, 336(3)^{33.336. Forgery.— (3) Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.}, 338^{44.338. Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.—Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.}, 340(2)^{55.340. Forged document or electronic record and using it as genuine.— (2) Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic record, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document or electronic record.}, 344^{66.344. Falsification of accounts.—Whoever, being a clerk, officer or servant, or employed or acting in the capacity of a clerk, officer or servant, wilfully, and with intent to defraud, destroys, alters, mutilates or falsifies any book, electronic record, paper, writing, valuable security or account which belongs to or is in the possession of his employer, or has been received by him for or on behalf of his employer, or wilfully, and with intent to defraud, makes or abets the making of any false entry in, or omits or alters or abets the omission or alteration of any material particular from or in, any such book, electronic record, paper, writing, valuable security or account, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.}, 61(2)^{77.61. Criminal conspiracy.— (2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy,— (a) to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Sanhita for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence; (b) other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.} of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 r/w Sections 66-C^{88.66-C. Punishment for identity theft.— Whoever, fraudulently or dishonestly make use of the electronic signature, password or any other unique identification feature of any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to rupees one lakh.} and 66-D^{99.66-D. Punishment for cheating by personation by using computer resource.— Whoever, by means of any communication device or computer resource cheats by personation, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to one lakh rupees.} of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The allegations of the prosecution, instituted on a written report lodged by the Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Regional Office, reveal that there were serious financial irregularities in the sanctioning, processing and disbursal in respect of 105 Gold Loans during the relevant period.

Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Panigrahi, submits that the allegations of deliberate manipulation of banking records, fabrication and misuse of documents and diversion and siphoning of bank funds are under investigation.

It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the State that the principal accused is one Prashanta Kumar Mallick and the offence was committed during his tenure as Senior Associate-cum-Cash–in-Charge since 01.06.2022. However, the complicity of the said principal accused cannot be adjudged in isolation, as admittedly the fraud relates to multiple loan accounts and manipulation of official records and processes at different levels. Hence, it is incumbent upon the Investigating Agency to examine the role of each of the employees/officials who were in any way involved in the processing/ verification/ recommendation/ authentication, etc., or otherwise connected with facilitating the grant of loans in a fraudulent manner and also the beneficiaries.

Hence, the role ascribed to each of the Petitioners merits independent probe and such a probe would be farcical if they are insulated by an order of pre-arrest bail.

In this context, he relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State v. Anil Sharma^{1010.State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187.}.

He also relies on the following judgments:

During the tenure of the principal accused, Sri Prashanta Kumar Mallick, in his capacity as Sr. Associate-cum-Cash-in-Charge, in connivance with others, 105 Gold Loans were processed, out of which 31 loans were sanctioned against the pledge of fake gold ornaments and 74 loans were sanctioned without any gold ornaments being pledged.

During the investigation, it was further found that, in several cases, the loan documents and valuation reports of the Goldsmith were not available and the signatures of the borrowers had been forged.

More importantly, the principal accused, Sri Prashanta Kumar Mallick, also misappropriated the loan amounts by transferring the funds to his personal accounts as well as to the accounts of others, including some of the Petitioners.

So far as the Petitioner in ABLAPL No. 6638 of 2026 (Sanjita Moharana) is concerned, she was functioning as the Chief Manager, SBI, Balichandrapur Branch, during the tenure of the principal accused, Prashanta Kumar Mallick, as Senior Associate-cum-Cash-in-Charge. In her capacity as Chief Manager, the Petitioner processed two gold loans amounting to Rs. 7,60,000/- without ensuring minimum due diligence or checking the physical ornaments. On verification, it has come to light that the gold ornaments were fake and the signatures on the appraisal note by the processing and sanctioning officials were not found.

8-A. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner-Sanjita Moharana that she has cooperated with the ongoing investigation. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that, the allegation being prima facie on account of official duties discharged at the direction of a senior, no complicity can be attached to the Petitioner.

Even otherwise, since the allegations are primarily based on documentary evidence, and the Petitioner is a lady, on account of the special provisions provided under the BNSS qua ladies, she should be released on pre-arrest bail.

So far as Petitioner- Trinath Nayak, in ABLAPL No.13080 of 2025, is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the State that the Petitioner (Trinath Nayak) was posted as Assistant Manager (Field Manager) at SBI, Balichandrapur Branch, from 02.06.2023 to 31.07.2025.

The allegation against him is that he had processed and recommended two gold loans without gold ornaments and with fake gold ornaments, in contravention of the guidelines and without exercising due diligence.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that since the allegations are based on documentary evidence and as there is no allegation of the Petitioner not co-operating with the investigation, his further custodial interrogation is not warranted.

So far as Petitioner- Hiranmaya Jena in ABLAPL No.13769 of 2025 is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the State that the Petitioner, Hiranmaya Jena, was posted as Deputy Manager (Service Manager) at SBI, Balichandrapur Branch, from 28.06.2024 to 23.07.2025 and, being the joint custodian of the pledged gold ornaments, had a statutory and departmental responsibility to ensure the safe custody of the pledged gold, maintenance of the gold loan registers and compliance with the requirements relating to gold loan operations.

10-A. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner-Hiranmaya Jena, that the Petitioner merely acted at the direction of the principal accused, so no complicity can be attached to her and since the allegation is mostly based on documentary evidence, he may be protected by pre-arrest bail.

According to the learned counsel for the State, because of the action and inaction on the part of the Petitioner- Hiranmaya Jena, the fraud could be committed.

So far as Petitioner- Bijaylaxmi Nayak, in ABLAPL No.7119 of 2026, is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the State that while she was attached to the SBI Branch as Goldsmith, on 05.10.2024 a sum of Rs.50,000/- was transferred from SB A/C No.383584399915, belonging to the petitioner-Bijaylaxmi Nayak, to the HDFC A/C No.50100725108010 of the principal accused Prashanta Kumar Mallick. Further, on 21.10.2024, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and on 01.11.2024, a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- were transferred from the account of one Sai Prashad Mallick to the account of the petitioner- Bijaylaxmi Nayak. According to the learned counsel for the State she is a key player in the fraud committed. And, if she is protected by pre-arrest bail the ongoing investigation would hit a road-block.

Per contra, learned counsel for the Petitioner- Bijaylaxmi Nayak submits that the name of the Petitioner does not find place in the FIR and the allegations primarily relate to Sri Prashanta Kumar Mallick, Senior Associate-cum-Cash In-charge, who was assigned with the appraisal, verification and sanction of the gold loans.

It is his further contention that the Petitioner- Bijaylaxmi Nayak, being a lady engaged on a temporary basis, has been falsely implicated in the present case, despite having no involvement in the alleged offences and hence she may be enlarged on pre-arrest bail.

So far as Petitioner- Manosmita Mishra, in ABLAPL No.7625 of 2025, is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the State that the Petitioner(Manosmita Mishra), daughter-in-law of co-accused Urmila Mishra (Petitioner in ABLAPL No.7634 of 2026), availed four gold loans amounting to Rs.19,60,000/-, sanctioned against fake gold ornaments or without any ornaments, which were credited to her Savings Bank Account No. 36036769058. Further, out of five gold loan accounts sanctioned in the names of other persons for Rs.1,10,90,000/-, a sum of Rs.27,50,690/- was transferred to the said account, and her mobile number was used for generating OTPs for the transactions. Hence, she ought not to be protected by pre-arrest bail.

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner- Manosmita Mishra that the name of the Petitioner does not find place in the FIR and the petitioner has no involvement in the alleged incident in any manner, so no complicity can be attached to her and it is further stated that since the Petitioner is a lady, she may be protected by pre-arrest bail.

So far as complicity of the Petitioner-Urmila Mishra, in ABLAPL No.7634 of 2026, is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the State that the said Petitioner- Urmila Mishra, mother-in-law of co-accused, Manosmita Mishra (Petitioner in ABLAPL No.7625 of 2025), had availed 10 Gold Loans amounting to Rs.48,20,000/- vide Account Nos. 43676105256, 43676179614, 43705319392, 43705390965, 43769468657, 43776305976, 43776307010, 43787782232, 44037989265 and 44052656271. It is further alleged that the sanctioned amounts were transferred to the Petitioner's Savings Bank Account bearing No. 31541406970 and that the said loans were sanctioned using fake gold ornaments or without any gold ornaments.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Urmila Mishra, that, since the same is primarily based on documentary evidence and considering her age (71 years) and that the petitioner is a lady and her cooperation with the ongoing probe, she may be granted pre-arrest bail.

The common thread of submission of the learned counsel, for the Petitioners in all the cases, taking into account the nature of the allegations, custodial interrogation is not necessary since it is not the stand of the prosecution that the Petitioners have not cooperated with the ongoing investigation and that there is any scope for them to abscond or interfere with the investigation.

Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the State, Mr. Panigrahi that the offence is an economic offence involving a public financial institution. Hence, the Petitioners cannot be protected by an order of pre-arrest bail when further investigation is at a crucial stage to unearth the involvement of the other accused persons as well as money trail.

Regarding the economic offence and its import, he places reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Nimmagadda Prasad (supra)¹⁵, in which it was observed as under:

Considering the rival submissions in the light of the materials which have come to the fore regarding the prima facie complicity of the Petitioners, this Court is persuaded to hold that ensconcing them with an order of pre-arrest bail would render the further investigation otiose. Save and except the Petitioner in ABLAPL No.7634 of 2026 (Urmila Mishra).

Considering that she is a lady and is aged about 71 years and the role ascribed to her, in the light of the proviso to sub Section (1) of Section 480 of the BNSS, it is directed that on surrendering within three weeks hence and moving for bail, the said Petitioner shall be released on bail by the learned Court in seisin on such terms as deemed just and proper.

The ABLAPL Nos.13080, 13769 & 7625 of 2025 and ABLAPL Nos.6638 & 7119 of 2026 filed by Trinath Nayak, Hiranmaya Jena, Manosmita Mishra and Sanjita Moharana & Bijaylaxmi Nayak respectively stand rejected.

However, in the event the above mentioned Petitioners surrender and seek bail, their application shall be considered independently without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove, which were in connection with the prayer for pre-arrest bail.

Accordingly, the ABLAPLs stand disposed of.

The interim orders passed earlier stand vacated.