BAISHAKHI SAHA vs STATE OF ODISHA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL NO. 6547 of 2026

CNR NO. ODHC010459472026

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

Baishakhi Saha … Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha … Opposite Party


For Petitioner : Mr. A. Tripathy, Advocate

For Opposite Party : Mr. S.C. Pradhan, Addl. PP

CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY




DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:08.09.2026(ORAL)

G. Satapathy, J.

1. 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.
2. 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
BLAPL No.6547 of 2026 Page 1 of 7

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.
3. 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.
4. 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
BLAPL No.6547 of 2026 Page 2 of 7

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
BLAPL No.6547 of 2026 Page 3 of 7

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.
5. 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
BLAPL No.6547 of 2026 Page 4 of 7

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
BLAPL No.6547 of 2026 Page 5 of 7

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.
6. 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.
7. 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
BLAPL No.6547 of 2026 Page 6 of 7

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:-
(i) the petitioner shall not leave the country
without prior permission of the learned trial Court
till disposal of the case by surrendering her
passport, if not already surrendered or seized. If
the petitioner is not a holder of Passport, she
may swear an affidavit to that effect & produce it
before the learned trial Court.

8. 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.


(G. Satapathy)
Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
th
Dated the 8 day of September, 2026/Priyajit
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: PRIYAJIT SAHOO
Designation: Sr. Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Date: 08-Sep-2026 21:24:45
BLAPL No.6547 of 2026 Page 7 of 7