Orissa HC Denies Pre-Arrest Bail To Five In SBI’s 105 Gold-Loan Case, But Directs Bail For 71-Year-Old Accused Upon Surrender

The six petitioners sought pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with an Economic Offences Wing case concerning alleged irregularities in 105 gold loans.

The prosecution alleged that 31 loans were secured against fake gold and 74 were sanctioned without pledged gold; loan records and signatures were allegedly falsified, and loan proceeds were allegedly diverted, including to accounts connected with some petitioners.

The State attributed to the petitioners roles in processing or recommending loans, custody of pledged gold, receipt of transfers, or availing loans supported by fake or nonexistent gold.

The petitioners relied, among other matters, on the documentary nature of the evidence, their asserted cooperation, and, for some petitioners, their status as women.

The applications were heard together because they arose from the same case.

Section 482 BNSS provides the procedural basis for seeking pre-arrest bail; the Court considered the prosecution’s contention that custodial access was important to the ongoing investigation into an alleged economic offence and its money trail.

The Court also applied the proviso to Section 480(1) BNSS in directing that Urmila Mishra be released on bail upon surrender and application to the court in seisin.

In assessing the State’s opposition, the Court considered the principle in Nimmagadda Prasad v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 466, that serious economic offences may have wider consequences and warrant careful consideration in bail matters.

The State also cited State v. Anil Sharma, P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, Directorate of Enforcement v. P.V. Prabhakar Rao, Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy v. CBI, and State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal; the order does not separately set out or apply a distinct rule from each of those authorities.

The Court considered the prima facie material indicating multiple allegedly fraudulent loans, manipulation of banking records, and possible diversion of loan proceeds, alongside the individual allegations against the petitioners.

It accepted the State’s position that further investigation—including tracing the money and examining the involvement of other persons—was at a crucial stage, and concluded that pre-arrest protection for the petitioners, except Urmila Mishra, would render that investigation otiose.

For Urmila Mishra, the Court treated her age, status as a woman, and the role attributed to her as grounds for applying the proviso to Section 480(1) BNSS.

It directed that Urmila Mishra be released on bail by the court in seisin on such terms as it considers just and proper, upon her surrender within three weeks and application for bail.

The Court further directed that, if the other petitioners surrender and seek regular bail, those applications be considered independently and without being influenced by the observations made in deciding pre-arrest bail.

The interim orders were vacated.