Orissa High Court

Susanta Kumar Samal vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite Party on 31 October, 2025

Author: G. Satapathy

Bench: G. Satapathy

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
              BLAPL NOs.7534 & 7952 of 2025

   (In the matter of applications under Section 483 of
   BNSS, 2023).

  Susanta Kumar Samal         ...                Petitioners
  (In BLAPL No.7534 of 2025)
  Soumya Sankar Chakra @ Raja
  (In BLAPL No.7952 of 2025)

                                 Mr. A. Parija, Sr. Advocate
                        along with Mr. A. Behera, Advocate
                               (in BLAPL No.7534 of 2025)
                                 Mr. C. Kanungo, Advocate
                      along with Mr. A. Mohanty, Advocate
                              ( in BLAPL No.7952 of 2025)

                          -versus-
  State of Odisha                    ...    Opposite Party

                                  Mr. P.S. Nayak, Addl. PP

       CORAM:
                   JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

                   DATE OF HEARING :29.10.2025
                   DATE OF JUDGMENT:31.10.2025
G. Satapathy, J.

1. These are the bail applications U/S.483 of

BNSS by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection

with EOW PS Case No.03 of 2025 corresponding to CT

Case No.4(C) of 2025 pending in the file of learned

Presiding Officer, Designated Court, Under OPID Act,

Balasore, for commission of offences punishable

U/Ss.406/409/420/467/468/471/120-B of IPC, on the

main allegation of committing large scale financial fraud

and misappropriation of crores of rupees by receiving

disproportionate high payment for commercial

transaction made with Gandhamardan Loading Agency

and Transporting Co-operative Society Ltd. with forged

documents after entering into conspiracy with co-

accused persons.

2. The background of facts giving rise to these

two bail applications are that around eighteen years

back, one society namely Gandhamardan Loading

Agency and Transporting Co-operative Society Ltd,

Suakati, Keonjhar (hereinafter referred to as "the

society") was created for the development of the

affected villages of Gandhamardan Mines, Putulipani

Mines and Khandadhar Mines, but since last seven

years (2017-18 to 2023-24), the president and the

secretary of the aforesaid organization with assistance

of others were/are doing illegal business instead of

doing developmental work by taking the loading work

of extracted ores from these mines to their own hand

without allowing any other organization to do the same

and in the process, misappropriating a sum of Rs.40 to

50 Crores annually. It is alleged that the accused

persons by forging various documents and showing

false expenditure under fictitious heads towards

"periphery development of the affected villages and fuel

charges" has allegedly misappropriated the amount,

which are unearthed in a special audit conducted due to

specific complaints. It is further alleged that the funds

generated from the monopoly business of loading of

iron ores of the society were being allegedly siphoned

off by the president & secretary of the society through

cash or self cheques without proper supporting

document like work orders or vouchers and by not

recording the transactions in the official register. On the

aforesaid allegation, one Biswanath Roul has lodged an

FIR before Superintendent of Police, EOW Bhubaneswar

against the president Manas Ranjan Barik, secretary

Utkal Das and others office bearers of the society

paving the way for registration of Bhubaneswar EOW

PS Case No.03 of 2025 for commission of offences

punishable U/S.406/ 409/ 420/ 467/ 468/ 471/ 120-B

of IPC and the matter was investigated into and finding

the complicity of the petitioners, they were taken into

custody giving rise to these present bail applications

after they became unsuccessful in approaching the PO,

Designated Court (under OPID Act), Balasore for

securing their liberty.

3. This Court has heard Mr. Ashok Kumar

Parija, learned Sr. counsel who is being assisted by Mr.

Arnav Behera, learned counsel for the petitioner in

BLAPL No.7534 of 2025; Mr. C. Kanungo & Mr. A.

Mohanty learned counsels for the petitioner in BLAPL

No.7952 of 2025 and Mr. Partha Sarathi Nayak, learned

Addl. Public Prosecutor in these matters and perused

the record.

4. In advancing argument, Mr. Parija, learned

Sr. counsel has submitted that the FIR has been lodged

by one Biswanath Roul who is neither a member of the

society nor is he a resident of the area of operation of

the society, rather he is a rank outsider and the society

is a private cooperative being self-financed and has

never received any aid or funds from the government

and thereby, the allegation of loss of public money or

state revenue is untenable and any dispute regarding

defalcation or embezzlement of money should have

been appropriately addressed to by an aggrieved

member U/S.67 r/w Sec.118 of the Odisha Co-

operative Societies Act and any payment made to the

Shankar Roadways was genuine commercial transaction

pursuant to written agreement for loading, unloading

and transportation work, and the same was being made

against proper bills raised by Shankar Roadways with

duly deduction of TDS in respect of each transactions,

no criminal liability arises against the petitioners. It is

further submitted by Mr. Parija that the charge-sheet

shows that no money has been received by the society

from government and all its income has been in the

form of loading charges, but the allegations against the

petitioner are for holding of the meetings of the society

in his house, drafting of resolution of the society by him

and personally writing the cheques not signed by the

office bearers of the society. It is further argued that a

sum of Rs.1,75,13,768/- was allegedly received by the

petitioner for engaging one loader machine and the

amount so received by him from the society is

disproportionated and comparatively much higher than

the usual loader charge, but the aforesaid allegations

are never substantiated by the investigating agency

and thereby, no offence of criminal breach of trust as

contemplated U/S.406/409 of IPC is made out against

the petitioner since he is not an office bearer of the

society, rather he is only a C class member without any

entrustment of property to him and so far the allegation

of forgery against the petitioner is concerned, no

document has been raised against him and thereby, no

offences U/S.467/468/471 of IPC are made out against

the petitioner and there is also no offence of cheating

made out against the petitioner, since no inducement

for delivery of property by the petitioner has been

found out from the materials on record. Mr. Parija has

further submitted that the offences alleged against the

petitioner are triable by magistrate and the same are

purely based on documentary evidence, but the

investigating authority has seized all the documents

and thereby, there is hardly any chance/scope of

tampering of evidence by the petitioner. It is further

submitted that since the prosecution has cited 112

witnesses in the charge-sheet, the trial would take

considerable long time, but the petitioner having

satisfied the triple test may kindly be granted bail. On

the aforesaid submission, Mr. Parija has prayed to

grant bail to the petitioner.

4.1. In echoing the submission of Mr. Parija, Mr.

Kanungo has submitted that the allegation against the

petitioner revolves around a commercial transaction

and thereby, the petitioner neither is a criminal of

serious offences nor is he a threat to the society and

the entire case is based on documents and record

which have already been seized and are in the custody

of the prosecution and as such there is no question of

tampering of prosecution documents by the petitioner

and all the payments being made through cheques

having duly accounted for with deduction of TDS which

reveals no suspicious transactions and the petitioner

having deep root in the society, there is no flight risk,

in the event of his enlargement on bail. It is further

submitted for the petitioner-Susanta Kumar Samal that

although the allegation is based on the scrutiny of the

bank account of the society and an amount of

Rs.1,60,47,140 has been transferred to the account of

M/s. Shankar Roadways whose proprietor is the other

petitioner-Soumya Shankar Chakra, but the aforesaid

transaction being a commercial transaction executed

between the petitioner-Soumya Shankar Chakra and

the society with proper bills, no offence is made out

against the petitioners. It is further submitted that the

allegation regarding fuel payments through "Maa Kali

KSK Petrol Pump" is completely false, misleading and

the co-accused being the owner of a stone crusher unit

under "Shankar Minerals", which requires significant

amounts of fuel for its daily operation, the petitioner

was maintaining a separate fuel account with Maa Kali

KSK Petrol Pump for its own business and there exists

no connection or relationship between fuel consumption

account of the co-accused and that of the society's fuel

arrangement with Maa Kali KSK Petrol Pump, but the

investigating agency has heavily relied upon the

statement of Premananda Barik and Pravat Pattanaik to

connect the petitioners with this case, but the same

does not inspire confidence and deserves no acceptance

and the statements of these two witnesses are

misleading and without any factual basis and their

statement have been obtained under duress and

coercion and, therefore, deserves no acceptance. It is

also submitted for the petitioner that prima facie there

is no document or record to connect the petitioner-

Susanta Kumar Samal with alleged payment of

Rs.8,00,00,000/- by the society to Maa Kali Kishan

Seva Kendra Petrol Pump except the statement of

witness Premananda Barik and thereby no offence

being strictly made out against the petitioner and he

having detained in custody for substantial period may

kindly be granted bail.

4.2. In opposing the bail application of both the

petitioners, Mr. Partha Sarathi Nayak, learned Addl.

Public Prosecutor, however, has forcefully submitted

that the president and secretary being the joint

authorized signatories of the bank account of the

society have issued several cheques and made cash

withdrawal through bearer cheques and have shown

expenditure of more than one hundred seventy five

crores against the income approximately at

Rs.184,00,00,000/- of the society during the alleged

financial period for the year 2017-18 to 2023-24 for

which the FIR has been lodged and the aforesaid

expenditure have been incurred through fraudulent bill

without any vouchers pursuant to the criminal

conspiracy of the petitioners and other co-accused

persons and the investigation so far revealed that a

sum of Rs.31,36,00,000/- and some odd have been

transferred to different accounts without any

transaction with the society and out of the said amount,

on verification of self-cheques, it reveals that a total of

Rs.12,90,74,000/- have been withdrawn from the

account of the society through close associate of the

petitioner Soumya Sankar Chakra @ Raja, who is the

proprietor of Shankar Roadways and Shankar Minerals.

It is further submitted by the learned Addl. Public

Prosecutor, that Shankar Roadways and Shankar

Minerals deal with transportation and stone crushing

units respectively and in the course of investigation,

from the scrutiny of statement of the bank of accounts

of the society that an amount of Rs.1,60,87,000/- and

some odd only has been transferred to the account of

Shankar Roadways and on further the scrutiny of three

bank accounts of the society maintained with HDFC and

Union Bank of India, it is revealed that the society has

transferred a sum of Rs.9,39,38,000/- only to Maa Kali

KSK Petrol Pump and the statement of Premananda

Barik, who is the owner-cum-proprietor of the said

petrol pump situated at a distance of 30km. from the

office of the society reveals that aforementioned society

has never taken any fuel for their vehicles, but the

petitioner Soumya Shankar Chakra @ Raja had taken

fuel for three agencies on credit basis and the cost of

the fuel of the vehicles of the petitioner was in fact paid

through cheques of the bank account of the society for

a sum of Rs.9,39,38,000/- and thereby, there is a

strong prima facie case against the petitioner-Soumya

Shankar Chakra @ Raja for misappropriating the funds

of the society by way of fraud and cheating. In praying

to reject the bail applications of the petitioner Soumya

Shankar Chakra @ Raja, the learned Addl. Public

Prosecutor has also brought to the notice of the Court

that the criminal antecedent of the petitioner for

fourteen criminal cases. It is further submitted by the

learned Addl. Public Prosecutor by highlighting the

allegation levelled against the petitioner-Susanta

Kumar Samal that the aim and objective of society was

to promote economic interest of members through

loading of iron ore of the OMC, Mining area namely

Suakati and for development of periphery area of such

mines, but in the guise of periphery development of the

area, the petitioner and others have misappropriated

crores of rupees of the society and in the course of

interrogation, the petitioner has admitted that 51 self-

cheques of the society maintained at HDFC Bank are

written by him for a total amount of Rs.12,90,74,000/-

which has been withdrawn by co-accused persons

towards periphery development, but Government

officials like BDO Banspal, BDO Keonjhar Sadar and

Regional Manager OMC have reported that no periphery

development has been undertaken by the society. It is

further submitted that in the course of investigation, it

is found that a sum of Rs.1,64,79,768/- has been

transferred to the account of the petitioner-Susanta

Kumar Samal from the account of the society and a

sum of Rs.10,34,000/- was transferred to his account

maintained at Bank of India from the account of the

society, but the petitioner has failed to give any

satisfactory explanation for such withdrawal and the

petitioner is also found to have one criminal antecedent

of similar offence in Keonjhar Sadar PS Case No.317 of

2015 and his involvement in this case is palpable from

the materials placed on record and, therefore, the

petitioner- Susanta Kumar Samal also does not deserve

to be released on bail.

5. After having considered the rival

submissions upon perusal of record, this Court reminds

that the statutory provisions of bail confers wide

discretion on the Court either to grant or refuse bail to

the applicant, but such exercise of discretion should not

be arbitrary or de hors the basic principles of bail as

laid down by different constitutional Courts in a catena

of decisions. The parameters under which the discretion

has to be considered has been well elucidated by the

Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar Vrs. Ashis

Chatterjee & Anr : (2010) 14 SCC 496, wherein the

Apex Court in Paragraph 9 has held as under:-

"9. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:

(i) Whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the Accused had committed the offence;

(ii) Nature and gravity of the accusation;

(iii) Severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;

(iv) Danger of the Accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;

(v) Character, behavior, means, position and standing of the Accused;

             (vi) Likelihood     of   the   offence        being
            repeated;
            (vii) Reasonable apprehension            of     the
            witnesses being influenced; and

(viii) Danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail."

It is equally true that the High Court is

bestowed with considerable discretion while deciding an

application for bail, but such discretion is not unfettered

and thereby, the High Court may grant bail to the

applicant after application of a judicial mind, but

following the well established principles, the Court has

to look into/consider any prima facie materials or

reasonable grounds to find out as to whether, such

materials prima facie disclose the involvement of the

accused for commission of the offences, besides the

nature and gravity of the accusation. In the present

case, there is allegation against the petitioners for large

scale financial defalcation from the bank account of the

society and it is not disputed that the society was in

fact created for the development of the public of the

periphery village of the area of mining operation and its

member. A careful scrutiny of the materials placed on

record reveals allegation against the petitioners for

systematic manipulation of records and forgery of

documents and unauthorized withdrawals of the fund of

the society. It is also alleged that the petitioner-

Susanta Kumar Samal has issued number of cheques in

his own handwriting and there is allegation against him

for misappropriating the society's fund without

accounting for withdrawals through self-cheques and

office bearers cheques. It is also claimed in the

investigation by way of the report of government

officials like BDO Banspal, BDO Keonjhar Sadar and

Regional Manager OMC that no periphery development

has been undertaken by the society. In his written

argument, the petitioner-Soumya Sankar Chakra has

acknowledged about the transaction of

Rs.1,60,47,140/- by terming it as an commercial

transaction between him and the society, but it is not

the only allegation against the said petitioner, but also

there is allegation about purchasing fuel for his own

company's vehicles from Maa Kali KSK Petrol Pump

through the funds of society and such allegation of

misappropriation is near about Rs.9,39,00,000/- which

is on the basis of the statement of the proprietor of the

petrol pump namely Premananda Barik. Further, there

is also an allegation against the petitioner-Soumya

Sankar Chakra for directing one Pravat Pattanaik to

transfer more than Rs.70lakhs which he had illegally

received from the account of the society, to different

accounts. Similar allegation is levelled against the

petitioner- Susanta Kumar Samal for misappropriating

crores of rupees of the society by cheating and forgery

of documents. It is also alleged at paragraph 16.6 of

the charge-sheet that so far the payment of

Rs.34.65crores towards periphery development in

mines affected area during the financial period of 2017-

18 to 2023-24, the investigating agency on scrutiny of

the records did not find any ledger relating to the

payment as shown to the parties under this head

accepting some entries made in the tally register which

is being maintained since 2022, yet no voucher was

found against the payments as shown in the tally

sheets containing workers signature/thumb impression

were produced for verification and such payment sheets

are found to be false/fabricated as it lacks any

certification by the executants of the work or any

authority of the society. Further the detail address of

the workers like father's name, village name etc., to

whom payment are made has not been reflected in the

said sheets and no work order was issued to the

executants of the work. These are few allegations

against the petitioners and other office bearers of the

society which needs scrutiny in the trial.

6. It is undoubtedly claimed by the petitioners

that no offence is in fact made out against the petitioners,

but it is too early to say that no offence is made out

against them, more particularly when the trial is yet to

commence, however, the materials placed on records

definitely disclose allegation against the petitioners for

misappropriating the funds of the company by way of

fraud and manipulation of documents. Besides, the

criminal antecedents of the petitioners albeit have not

been disclosed by them in their bail applications, but it is

not disputed that the petitioner- Susanta Kumar Samal is

having one criminal antecedent which was of course

submitted by the learned Sr. counsel Mr. Parija to have

been quashed by this Court, but no document has been

filed to that effect, whereas the petitioner- Soumya

Sankar Chakra is having fourteen criminal antecedents

which stand on his way to secure liberty not only

because he is involved in number of criminal cases, but

also it suggests against his release on bail for likelihood

of repetition of commission of offences in future by him

which is one of the factors to be looked into while

granting bail to an accused. In considering the bail to

the applicant, the Court cannot close its eyes to the

criminal antecedent of such applicant in view of the

following observation in Ash Mohammad Vrs. Shiv

Raj Singh @ Lalla babu and Anr; (2012) 9 SCC 446

wherein, while cancelling the bail granted bail to

respondent-accused therein, the Apex Court in

paragraph-30 has inter alia observed as under:-

"30.We may usefully state that when the citizens are scared to lead a peaceful life and this kind of offences usher in an impediment in

establishment of orderly society, the duty of the court becomes more pronounced and the burden is heavy. There should have been proper analysis of the criminal antecedents. Needless to say, imposition of conditions is subsequent to the order admitting an accused to bail. The question should be posed whether the accused deserves to be enlarged on bail or not and only thereafter issue of imposing conditions would arise. We do not deny for a moment that period of custody is a relevant factor but simultaneously the totality of circumstances and the criminal antecedents are also to be weighed. They are to be weighed in the scale of collective cry and desire. The societal concern has to be kept in view in juxtaposition of individual liberty. Regard being had to the said parameter we are inclined to think that the social concern in the case at hand deserves to be given priority over lifting the restriction of liberty of the accused."

6.1. In Azwar Vrs. Waseen; 2024 10 SCC 768,

the Apex Court in Paragraph 26 has held as under:-

"26.while considering as to whether, bail ought to be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of accusations made against the accused, the manner in which crime to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of tempering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the Court of justice and the overall desirability of releasing the accused on bail."

7. Bail always deals with the two conflicting

interests of individual liberty and societal interest, but

personal liberty is paramount, however, it is not absolute

in all the criminal cases and individual liberty must be

subject to the procedure established by law. In the

present case at hand, there is undoubtedly transactions

of crores of rupees from the funds of the society and the

allegation against the petitioners is for financial fraud and

misappropriation of the funds of the society and the case

is not entirely based on documents, but also of the oral

statements of some of the witnesses and the petitioners

being influential persons and one of them having number

of criminal antecedents, this Court has reason enough to

believe that the petitioners are in a position to influence

the witnesses in the trial, if released on bail and

influencing the witness is one of the consideration for

refusing bail.

8. In a case involving large scale financial fraud

particularly those affecting public, the Court shall be

duty-bound to approach the case for bail in a cautious

and guarded manner and the allegation in the present

case against the petitioners is for misappropriation of

substantial sum in crores of rupees over a period of seven

financial years. It is not out of place to mention here that

in CBI Vrs. Ramendu Chattopadhyay; (2020) 14 SCC

396, the Apex Court in paragraph 7 has held as under:-

"7. This Court is conscious of the need to view such economic offences having a deep-rooted conspiracy and involving a huge loss of investors' money seriously. Though further investigation is going on, as of now, the investigation discloses that the Respondent played a key role in the promotion of the chit fund scam described supra, thereby cheating a large number of innocent depositors and misappropriating their hard- earned money."

In Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vrs. CBI;

(2013) 7 SCC 439, the Apex Court in paragraph 34 and

35 has held as under:-

"34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.

35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of

securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations."

9. In this case after having considered rival

submissions and taking into consideration the nature and

gravity of the offences as alleged against the petitioners

vis-à-vis the accusations sought to be brought against

them and regard being had to the materials collected in

the course of investigation against the petitioners and

there being prima facie materials collected by the

investigating agency revealing their role in the alleged

commission of the offences and the investigation prima

facie revealing the money trail of serious magnitude in

the financial fraud and such money of the society being

not utilized for the purpose of the benefit of its