Bail was granted on parity after the principal accused and co-accused obtained bail.

The petitioner sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) in EOW, Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No. 16 of 2018, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 639 of 2018, pending before the Designated Court under the OPID Act-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur, Ganjam.

The case arose from allegations that Amrita Priyadarshini Patro, the petitioner’s daughter and then Bank Manager of Union Bank of India, Koraput Branch, sanctioned and disbursed loans in violation of bank guidelines between 17 October 2016 and 27 November 2017, allegedly causing a loss of approximately Rs.2,05,50,000 to the Bank.

The petitioner was alleged to have conspired with his daughter and other relatives.

During investigation, it was alleged that a loan of Rs.35,00,000 was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner’s wife and daughter, with the amount disbursed in phases into the petitioner’s savings account.

After submission of the charge-sheet, the petitioner was taken into custody and, having failed to secure bail before the Designated Court, approached the High Court.

Whether the petitioner should be granted bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in connection with the alleged offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472 and 34 of the IPC.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on the principle of parity, particularly when the principal accused and other co-accused had already been granted bail.

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, which empowers the High Court to grant bail in appropriate cases.

The alleged offences were under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472 and 34 of the IPC, concerning criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery, use of forged documents, possession of forged documents and acts done in furtherance of common intention.

The Court also applied the principle of parity in bail matters: similarly placed accused may be granted bail where the principal accused or co-accused have already received bail, subject to the facts and circumstances of the case.

The Court acknowledged that allegations existed against the petitioner regarding conspiracy with his daughter to defraud the Bank.

However, the principal accused, Amrita Priyadarshini Patro, had already been granted bail by a coordinate Bench, and co-accused Pankajini Patro and Pranaya Purnamasi Patro had also been granted bail in their respective proceedings.

Since the main allegation was directed against the petitioner’s daughter as the principal accused, and the petitioner’s case was considered in light of the bail already granted to the principal accused and other co-accused, the Court found it appropriate to extend the benefit of bail on parity.

The Court expressly clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

The petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.5,00,000 with two solvent sureties for the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court in seisin of the case, on such further terms and conditions as that Court deemed fit and proper, excluding cash surety.

The BLAPL was accordingly disposed of, and a soft copy of the order was directed to be communicated to the concerned Court and thereafter to the concerned jail through e-mail.