[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Aswini Kumar Patra vs Republic Of India (Cbi) ... Opposite ... on 6 January, 2026
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.12071 of 2025
(In the matter of application under Section 483 of the
BNSS).
Aswini Kumar Patra ... Petitioner
-versus-
Republic of India (CBI) ... Opposite Party
For Petitioner : Mr. S.D. Mohapatra, Advocate
For Opposite Party : Mr. S. Nayak, Advocate (CBI)
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:06.01.2026 (ORAL)
G. Satapathy, J.
1. This is a bail application U/S.483 of the BNSS
by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with FIR
No.RC-09(A)/2019 BBS (RC0152019 A0009) registered
at PS CBI/SPE/ACB, Bhubaneswar corresponding to TR
Case No.07 of 2021 pending in the Court of learned
Special Judge, CBI-1, Bhubaneswar for commission of
offences punishable U/Ss. 120-B/409/420/ 471 of IPC
and Sec.13(2) r/w Sec.13(1)(d) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 together with its Amendment Act
of 2018 (In short "the Act").
2. The allegation against the petitioner in this
case arises out of an FIR lodged by one Roop Lal
Meena, Deputy General Manager, Union Bank of India,
who in his FIR dated 01.07.2019 has alleged that the
present petitioner and other bank officials, along with
private builders and borrowers had entered into a
conspiracy in the year 2017 and the present petitioner
and other bank officials by abusing their official position,
sanctioned housing loan in favour of the
borrowers/builders by accepting forged and fictitious
documents as valuable security and in the process
caused huge loss to the bank to the tune of 2.33 Crores
approximately and accordingly RC No.09(A)/2019-BBS
(RC0152019A0009) dated 01.07.2019 was registered
against the petitioner and others for commission of
offence punishable U/S.120-B/409/420/471 of IPC r/w
Sec.13(2) r/w Sec.13(1)(d) of the Act and after due
investigation, the CBI submitted charge-sheet in the
case, but the petitioner was taken into custody on
30.01.2020.
However, while the matter stood thus, the
petitioner was granted interim bail by this Court, but he
could not avail such interim bail due to the case
registered against him by Enforcement Director(ED)
basing on this FIR. Later on, the petitioner moved an
application before the Apex Court for granting him
regular bail in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.7701 of
2025, but the Apex Court while disposing of the SLP with
same terms as that passed in Special Leave to Appeal
(Crl.) No.7707 of 2025/7708 of 2025 with regard to
submission for grant of bail to co-accused Uma Shankar
Patro vide order dated 25.03.2025 in SLP (Crl.)
No.11420 of 2024 and applying afresh before the High
Court bringing in the aforesaid development on record
and this is the circumstances under which the petitioner
was approached this Court.
3. Heard, Mr. S Debabrata Reddy, learned counsel
for the petitioner and Mr. Sarthak Nayak, learned
counsel for Republic of India (CBI) in the matter and
perused the record. Mr. Sarthak Nayak, without
disputing about the fact of release of Uma Shankar Patro
on bail, however, submits that since there is no change
in circumstances in approaching this Court after refusal
of bail to the petitioner, the present bail application
cannot be considered on merit, more particularly when
there is serious allegation against the petitioner for
accepting forged and fake documents to grant loan to
the co-accused persons.
4. After having considered the rival submissions
upon perusal of record, there appears some allegation
against the petitioner for accepting forged documents as
an employee of the Union Bank of India to sanction loan
to co-accused borrowers and builders, but fact remains
that the petitioner is in custody since 31.12.2020 and in
the meantime some witnesses have been examined out
of the number of charge-sheeted witnesses. Mr. Sarthak
Nayak, learned counsel for CBI also acknowledges about
release of the accused Uma Shankar Patro who is
alleged to have taken major chunk of loan from the
Bank, but he, however, submits that the present
petitioner stands on different footing. Be that as it may,
right to speedy trial is the fundamental right of an
accused and a person who is in custody for five years
has legitimate expectation of conclusion of trial with
promptitude, however, in this case even after five years
custody of the petitioner the trial is progressing at snail
pace, but taking into account the number of charge-
sheeted witnesses cited in this case, it appears to the
Court that the trial would take longer time. In the
context of parity, this Court feels it proper to refer to
paragraph 71 of the decision in Satender Kumar Antil
Vrs. Central Bureau of Investigation; 2022 SCC
Online SC 825, wherein, the Apex Court has observed
as under:-
"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."
5. In view of the above facts and taking into
consideration grant of bail to co-accused Uma Shankar
Patro and keeping in view the order granting interim bail
to the present petitioner, but he having not availed such
interim bail and taking into account the circumstances
under which the trial is not likely to be concluded in near
future, this Court without expressing any view on merit
admits the petitioner to bail, but subject to further
condition that the petitioner shall co-operate the trial.
6. Hence, the bail application of the petitioner
stands allowed and the petitioner is allowed to go on bail
on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five
Lakhs) 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 stringent conditions:-
(i) the petitioner in the course of trial shall attend
the trial Court on each date of posting without fail
unless his attendance is dispensed with. In case
the Petitioner fails without sufficient cause to
appear in the Court in accordance with the
terms of the bail, the learned trial Court may
proceed against the Petitioner for offence
U/S.269 of BNS, 2023 in accordance with
law,
(ii) the petitioner shall surrender his passport, if
any (if not already surrendered/seized), and in
case, he is not a holder of the same, he shall
swear an affidavit to that effect.
7. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Digitally Signed Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Signed by: JAYAKRUSHNADated the 6th day of January, 2026/Jayakrushna
DASH
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 07-Jan-2026 18:30:51
