Bail granted where mens rea for processing forged loan documents remained triable.

The petitioner, Baishakhi Saha, sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) in connection with Bhubaneswar EOW Police Station Case No. 08 of 2026, corresponding to C.T. Case No. 08 of 2026, pending before the Designated Court under the Odisha Protection of Interests of Depositors Act, Cuttack.

She was alleged to have been the Service Manager of the State Bank of India, Rail Vihar Branch, Bhubaneswar, and, in connivance with the Branch Manager, middlemen and others, to have accepted forged documents and processed or recommended Xpress Credit loans, allegedly causing a loss of approximately ₹6.53 crore to the Bank.

The charge sheet stated that no suspicious transaction had been detected in the petitioner’s account and that the alleged beneficiaries of the ill-gotten money were mainly middlemen.

A departmental proceeding arising from the same loan-sanctioning irregularities had resulted in her demotion and reduction in pay scale, but no finding of criminal misappropriation or cheating was recorded against her.

The charge sheet had already been filed, and certain co-accused had been granted bail.

The petitioner was a woman, and the prosecution case substantially relied on documentary evidence already collected by the Investigating Agency.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under Section 483 of the BNSS despite allegations of processing forged documents and facilitating fraudulent loans involving substantial financial loss to the Bank?

Whether the absence of suspicious transactions in the petitioner’s account, the departmental finding of lapses rather than criminal misappropriation or cheating, the filing of the charge sheet, and the grant of bail to co-accused justified her release on bail?

Whether the petitioner’s status as a woman attracted the benefit of the first proviso to Section 480 of the BNSS in the consideration of bail?

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, which empowers the High Court to grant bail, in relation to the alleged offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC.

It also considered the first proviso to Section 480 of the BNSS, which permits the court to extend special consideration to a woman while deciding bail.

The Court applied the settled bail principles that a detailed examination of evidence or elaborate documentation is impermissible at the bail stage; the court must assess the prima facie circumstances, the possibility of absconding or tampering with witnesses, and the need for custody.

Criminal liability for accepting or processing forged documents depends upon the requisite mens rea, which is ordinarily a matter for trial rather than final determination at the bail stage.

The Court acknowledged the serious allegation that the petitioner had processed and recommended a large number of loans on the basis of forged documents, allegedly causing a loss of approximately ₹6.53 crore.

However, the charge sheet did not disclose any suspicious transaction in her account, nor did it show that she had received the alleged ill-gotten money transferred to the middlemen.

No material indicated that she had prepared the fabricated documents or that seals used for fabrication had been recovered from her.

The departmental proceeding established serious lapses or irregularities but did not record a finding of criminal misappropriation or cheating.

Since the charge sheet had already been filed and the prosecution case depended substantially on documents already seized, the possibility of the petitioner tampering with material evidence was considered limited.

The Court also took into account her status as a woman, the bail granted to certain co-accused, the absence of material suggesting that she would abscond or threaten witnesses, and the principle that the merits of mens rea and criminal liability must be determined at trial.

The petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of ₹1,00,000 with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the court in seisin of the case, subject to such further terms as that court might impose.

She was specifically directed not to leave India without prior permission of the trial court and to surrender her passport, or file an affidavit stating that she was not a passport holder.

The Court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the criminal case, which remained for determination at trial.