Orissa High Court
Rupashree Das vs State Of Odisha on 27 September, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.2786 of 2023
Rupashree Das .... Petitioner
Mr. S.C. Mohapatra, Sr. Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. A. Pradhan, ASC
CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
ORDER
27.09.2023
Order No.
06. 1. Heard learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner and
learned counsel for the State.
2. The Petitioner is an accused in connection with C.T. Case
No.6196 of 2019, pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C-III,
Bhubaneswar, arising out of Nayapalli P.S. Case No.657 of 2019,
for alleged commission of offences under Sections
419/420/467/468/471/120-B/34 IPC.
3. Being aggrieved by the rejection of her application for bail
U/s.439 Cr.P.C. by the learned Special Judge (CBI) Court No.I-
cum-Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswsar by order dated
03.03.2023 in the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has
been filed.
4. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that the
Petitioner is in custody since 01.02.2023 and as charge sheet has
already been filed on 28.03.2023, she may be released on bail.
5. It is the case of the prosecution that loan of Rs.4.5 crores
was sanctioned in the name of co-accused Ansuman Samantaray by
the Punjab National Bank. For grant of such loan the present
Petitioner connived with the co-accused which later became NPA.
6. It is stated by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Mohapatra
that the Petitioner was working as a Chartered Accountant and she
has acted merely at the dictate of the said Ansuman Samantaray and
since the case at hand is based on more or less documentary
evidence and the alleged forgery came to the fore after the loan
became an NPA, hence further continuance of the Petitioner in
custody is not warranted and more so since she is a lady. Learned
Senior Counsel also referred to the judgment of the apex Court in
the case of Sanjay Chandra vrs. Central Bureau of
Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40 and pressed for release of the
Petitioner.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State, Mr. Pradhan
submits that the Petitioner is hand in gloves with the said Ansuman
Samantaray and relies on the recitals in the Case Diary, to fortify his
submission that the Petitioner was actively involved in arranging the
guarantors. It is brought to the notice of this Court that Petitioner
herself executed letter of indemnity along with co-accused Sudhir
Kanta Samal @ Sudhendra Kumar Samal.
8. It is apt to note here that a Coordinate Bench of this Court
by order dated 10.05.2023 in BLAPL No.3643 of 2023 rejected the
bail application of the co-accused Ajay Kumar Choudhury and this
Court rejected the bail application of the co-accused Sudhir Kanta
Samal @ Sudhendra Kumar Samal by order dated 03.08.2023 in
BLAPL No.5010 of 2023.
9. On perusal of the materials on record, this Court finds
force in the submission of the learned counsel for the State Mr. A.
Pradhan, ASC that the present Petitioner is at all fours with the co-
accused Sudhir Kanta Samal @ Sudhendra Kumar Samal (BLAPL
No.5010 of 2023).
10. On consideration of the materials on record, this Court is
not persuaded to hold that the Petitioner is a victim of the
circumstances as submitted by the learned Senior Counsel and that
she had acted with due diligence as a Chartered Accountant. Rather
the materials on record clearly portray a different story which
unequivocally point to her active role in the commission of the
offence.
11. The Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vrs.
Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2022) 10 SCC 51
dealt with parity in Paragraph-71. Which is extracted hereunder :
"71. Uniformity and certainty in the decisions of the court
are the foundations of judicial dispensation. Persons
accused with same offence shall never be treated
differently either by the same court or by the same or
different courts. Such an action though by an exercise of
discretion despite being a judicial one would be a grave
affront to Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India."
12. It is worth noting that in the said judgment economic
offences have been treated as a separate class.
13. Taking into account that the public money was swindled
with active connivance of the present Petitioner as a Chartered
Accountant and the co-accused and keeping in view the dictum of
the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra),
relating to parity this Court is not inclined to entertain this bail
application at this stage notwithstanding that the Petitioner is a lady.
14. Accordingly, BLAPL stands rejected.
15. Leave is granted to the Petitioner to renew her prayer at a
later stage.
16. Learned Court in seisin is called upon to expedite the trial.
17. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rule.
(V. NARASINGH)
Judge
PKS
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: PRADEEP KUMAR SWAIN
Designation: A.R.-cum-Sr. Secy.
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 29-Sep-2023 16:28:11
