JUDGMENT S.K. SAHOO, J. : All these applications under Section 438 Cr. P.C. have been filed by the petitioners seeking pre-arrest bail in connection CBI/SPE Bhubaneswar Case No. RC. 04(A)/2014-BBSR (RC0152014A0004) dated 27.3.2014 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 120-B Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with 13(1) (d) of Prevention and Corruption Act, 1988. All the bail applications are heard analogously and a common order is passed. 2. The prosecution case as per the FIR lodged by one Mr. M.K. Sinha, Superintendent of Police, CBI, Bhubaneswar is that on 17.10.2013 M/s D.N. Homes (P) Ltd. applied to Odisha Gramya Bank, Bhubaneswar Branch, Unit-IV, Bhubaneswar for availing term loan of Rs. 20 crores for completion of the left over works in the project “Northern Heights” at Kalarahanga, Bhubaneswar. Though the Head Office of Odisha Gramya Bank sanctioned the loan but the Branch Manager of Odisha Gramya Bank, Bhubaneswar did not disburse the said loan as he came to known that the construction of the building is under dispute with Bhubaneswar Development Authority (BDA) and BDA had issued notice for demolition of the building as the company had not obtained approval from BDA for construction of the building. The Law Officer of the Odisha Gramya Bank also gave a negative opinion regarding sanction of loan on the ground of pendency of litigation and suggested for seeking legal opinion from some advocate dealing with civil matters which was not done rather the Head Office of the Odisha Gramya Bank obtained opinion from their Panel Advocate. As the loan amount was not disbursed by the Branch Manager, Odisha Gramya Bank, Bhubaneswar Branch, M/S. D.N. Homes (P) Ltd., approached another branch of Odisha Gramya Bank situated at Tankapani Road, Bhubaneswar for availing term loan of Rs. 20 crores for the same project. Mr. Manoranjan Mishra (petitioner in BLAPL No. 6617 OF 2014) who was the Branch Manager of the said Branch with dishonest intention initiated the pre-sanction process such as spot visit of the properties even prior to the receipt of application of loan i.e., on 21.11.2013 and on 22.11.2013, he sent the proposal to the Head Office seeking sanction of the term loan in favour of M/s. D.N. Homes (P) Ltd., which was ultimately sanctioned by Dr. Kalandi Charan Mohanty (petitioner in BLAPL No. 6216 of 2014), Chairman, Odisha Gramya Bank and it was recommended by Pravat Kumar Das (petitioner in BLAPL No. 6613 of 2014), Manager (Advance) and Makar Ketan Patra (petitioner in BLAPL No. 6314 of 2014), General Manager and other unknown persons of Odisha Gramya Bank Head Office on 25.11.2013 by taking additional collateral securities. It is further stated in the FIR that though it was within the knowledge of the officers of Odisha Gramya Bank Head Office that earlier sanctioned loan by them was not disbursed by the Branch Manager, Unit-IV, Bhubaneswar but with ulterior motive the loan of Rs. 20 crores was recommended/sanctioned/ disbursed to M/s D.N. Homes (P) Ltd. It is further stated in the FIR that the value of the properties were evaluated at a much higher side in as much as the properties which were purchased on 29.9.2012 for an amount Rs. 13.74 lakhs have been evaluated at Rs. 14 crores i.e., more than 100 times on 20.11.2013 i.e. after 11 months from the date of purchase of the properties. It is further stated that the project was already completed while the loan application of M/s D.N. Homes (P) Ltd, was under process at Odisha Gramya Bank for the construction of the said project. It is further stated that Manoranjan Mishra (petitioner in BLAPL No. 6617 of 2014), Branch Manager of Odisha Gramya Bank, Tankapani Road by abusing his official position with an ulterior motive disbursed the sanctioned loan of Rs. 20 crores within a short period without obtaining supporting documents from M/s D.N. Homes (P) Ltd., and not a single pie of the disbursed loan amount was utilized for the purpose it was sanctioned. It is further stated that M/s D.N. Homes (P) Ltd., had availed loan from different banks like HDFC, Indian Overseas Bank and Bank of Baroda, out of which the loan of Bank of Baroda was closed by taking the loan from Odisha Gramya Bank and the remaining loans were outstanding against M/s D.N. Homes (P) Ltd. 3. BLAPL No. 6254 of 2014 and BLAPL No. 6371 of 2014 The learned counsel Mr. BLAPL No. 6254 of 2014 and BLAPL No. 6371 of 2014 The learned counsel Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners in BLAPL No. 6254 of 2014 and BLAPL No. 6371 of 2014 submitted his written note of argument and contended that Jagdish Prasad Nayak (petitioner in BLAPL 6371 OF 2014) is the Managing Director and Miss. Ratnamala Swain (petitioner in BLAPL No. 6254 of 2014) is the Director of M/s. D.N. Homes (P) Ltd., He further contended that M/s. D. N. Homes (P) Ltd. is a huge construction company and it has constructed hundreds of flats and houses in and around Bhubaneswar City to the satisfaction of the customers. He further contended that the company has taken loan of Rs. 7.5 crores from Bank of Baroda and is making regular repayment. Similarly for the project of “Northern Heights”, the company has taken loan to the tune of Rs. 10 crores from the Indian Overseas Bank and since the entire project cost was more than Rs. 80 crores, the company approached Odisha Gramya Bank for a finance of Rs. 20 crores. He further contended that the company had availed a sum of Rs. 40 crores as loan from HDFC Ltd. for construction of another project called “D.N. Oxypark” and the said loan is also being repaid. He further contended that the company provided security which is valued at 104.08 crores as against loan of 20 crores only and additional collateral security of Rs. 18.95 crores was also furnished for the very same loan. He further contended that the Board of Directors of the Bank wherein many high ranking Government officials are members including representatives from NABARD, Central Government, State Government, Sponsored Bank i.e., Indian Overseas Bank, considering all the aspects and securing the bank’s interest to the fullest extent sanctioned loan of Rs. 20 crores. The learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. He further contended that the Board of Directors of the Bank wherein many high ranking Government officials are members including representatives from NABARD, Central Government, State Government, Sponsored Bank i.e., Indian Overseas Bank, considering all the aspects and securing the bank’s interest to the fullest extent sanctioned loan of Rs. 20 crores. The learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Mishra further contended that the petitioner’s company challenged the decision of the BDA for stoppage of construction on the allegation of unauthorized construction which has been confirmed in appeal in W.P.(C) 22357 of 2011 and this Hon’ble Court vide judgment and order dated 27.3.2012 allowed the writ application and quashed the direction of the BDA holding that BDA had no authority or jurisdiction to include villages of Kalarahanga Gram Panchayat to construct the building and the lands involved in the writ application are the very same land involved in the case. It is submitted by Mr. Mishra that though BDA challenged the judgment of this Court before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 26071 of 2012 but the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 1.10.2012 issued notice on the SLP and passed interim order by staying operation of the impugned order so far as further construction are concerned which was made absolute vide order dated 17.10.2013. The learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Mishra, submitted that the purchase value of property which is mentioned in the sale deeds was Rs. 1,05,20,720 and the stamp duty and registration fee was around 8 lakhs spent on the sale deed. He further contended that the allegation in the F.I.R. that the properties were purchased for about Rs. 13.74 lakhs and the same have been evaluated at Rs. 14 crores is nothing but a misnomer and contrary to the records available with C.B.I as well as Banks. The learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Mishra further contended that the fund was not diverted for any other purpose. He further submitted that the loan was sanctioned expecting early disbursement and to complete the work within the scheduled time to avoid wrath of the purchasers and to maintain good will in the market. He further contended that ‘Northern Heights’ is a huge residential complex consisting of 256 flats in different blocks in four towers. He further submitted that the loan was sanctioned expecting early disbursement and to complete the work within the scheduled time to avoid wrath of the purchasers and to maintain good will in the market. He further contended that ‘Northern Heights’ is a huge residential complex consisting of 256 flats in different blocks in four towers. He further submitted that after getting interim order, the petitioners cooperated with the investigation by the CBI and they have never misutilised their liberty. He further contended that in the meantime the entire loan amount of the Gramya Bank has been repaid and in support of such contention the account statement has been submitted by way of a memorandum. BLAPL No. 6216 of 2014 The learned counsel for the petitioner Dr. Kalandi Ch. Mohanty (petitioner in BLAPL No. 6216 of 2014) Mr. Sisir Kumar Purohit also submitted his written note of argument and contended that the petitioner was the Chairman of Odisha Gramya Bank who joined on 15.7.2013 and stayed for 8 months only and during his tenure the Bank’s business growth increased from 900 crores to 1000 crores and profit crossed 100 crores which the bank had never achieved earlier. He further contended that the petitioner had taken strong disciplinary action against the corrupt indiscipline staff and stopped fraud and unethical banking practice for which the staff union was very much aggrieved and the case has been foisted against the petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has not done anything by himself not he has influenced the loan assessment process. He contended that the loan was proposed and assessed by the Branch Manager and the proposal was considered by the Advances Deptt., Credit Approval Committee through GRID and after due deliberation, GRID approved the proposal for sanction of loan. The learned counsel further submitted that the allegation that adequate security was not taken is not correct. He contended that apart from the land and construction made on the land, the Bank considered and assessed the cost/value of the equitable mortgage of property, the value of the property to be Rs. 104 crores. He further contended that legal opinion in respect of the mortgage was duly obtained from the Bank’s approved lawyer. The collateral security shows property’s forced sale value was Rs. 415 lakhs. 104 crores. He further contended that legal opinion in respect of the mortgage was duly obtained from the Bank’s approved lawyer. The collateral security shows property’s forced sale value was Rs. 415 lakhs. The learned counsel further submitted that Credit Approval committee allowed the sanction by accepting further collateral security with forced sale value of Rs. 14.80 crores. The learned counsel further submitted that the sale deeds would indicate that the consideration amount is Rs. 1,05,20,720/- and the allegation in the FIR that the purchase value of the properties were Rs. 13.74 lakhs is totally false. The learned counsel forther submitted that no wrongful loss has been caused to the Bank in as much as that Bank was earning interest for more than Rs. 21 lakhs per month. He further contended that the petitioner has not misutilised his liberty and he has abided by all the conditions of interim bail. BLAPL No. 6613 of 2014, BLAPL No. 6617 of 2014 and BLAPL No. 6314 of 2014 The learned counsel for petitioner Pravat Kumar Das (petitioner in BLAPL No. 6613 of 2014) who was the Manager (Advance), Odisha Gramya Bank, Head Office, Bhubaneswar, petitioner Manoranjan Mishra (petitioner in BLAPL No. 6617 of 2014) who was the Branch Manager, Odisha Gramya Bank, Tankapani Road Branch, Bhubaneswar and petitioner Maker Ketan Patra (petitioner in BLAPL No. 6314 of 2014) who was the General Manager of Odisha Gramaya Bank, Head Office, Bhubaneswar adopted the arguments advanced by Mr. Mishra as well as by Mr. Purohit. The learned counsel for the CBI Mr. V. Narasingh while objecting to the prayer for anticipatory bail on instruction submitted that on the strength of search warrant issued by the learned Special Judge, CBI, search was conducted in the official as well residential premises of the FIR named accused persons and various documents have been seized and scrutinized. The learned counsel further submitted the status report of the case which was under the signature of Mr. S. Bhanja, Inspector/CBI, Bhubaneswar indicating therein that competent witnesses have been examined and further investigation of the case is under progress. He further submitted that so far as the status of the loan account is concerned, it has been intimated by the bank that the borrowers have recently made full payment of the loan. S. Bhanja, Inspector/CBI, Bhubaneswar indicating therein that competent witnesses have been examined and further investigation of the case is under progress. He further submitted that so far as the status of the loan account is concerned, it has been intimated by the bank that the borrowers have recently made full payment of the loan. He submitted in view of serious allegations against the petitioners which is borne out of records, anticipatory bail should not be granted. 4.It is case where allegations has been made that the accused persons have entered into a criminal conspiracy. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandara Prakash-v- State of Rajasthan, reported 2014 Criminal Law Journal 2884 held as follows:- “ 70. While dealing with the facet of criminal conspiracy, it has to be kept in mind that in a case of conspiracy, there cannot be any direct evidence. Express agreement between the parties cannot be proved. Circumstances proved before, during and after the occurrence have to be considered to decide about the complicity of the accused. Such a conspiracy is never hatched in open and, therefore, evaluation of proved circumstances plays a vital role in establishing the criminal conspiracy.” In case of Major E.G. Barsay –V- State of Bombay reported in AIR 1961 SC 1762 , Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:- “31 The next criticism is that here can be no legal charge of a conspiracy between accused No. 1 to 3, who are public servants and accused Nos. 4 to 6, who are not public servants, in respect of offences under Prevention of Corruption Act for the reason that they can only be committed by the public servants. But this contention ignores the scope of offence of criminal conspiracy. Section 120-A of Indian Penal Code defines “ criminal conspiracy” and under that definition. When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done, an illegal act or an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy. The gist of offence is an agreement to break the law. The parties to such an agreement will be guilty of criminal conspiracy though the illegal act agree to be done has not been done. So, too, it is not an ingredient of the offence that all the parties should agree to do a single illegal acts. The gist of offence is an agreement to break the law. The parties to such an agreement will be guilty of criminal conspiracy though the illegal act agree to be done has not been done. So, too, it is not an ingredient of the offence that all the parties should agree to do a single illegal acts. It may comprise the commission of a number of acts. Under Section 43 of I.P.C., an act would be illegal if it is an offence or if it is prohibited by law. Under the first charge, the accused are charged with having conspired to do three categories of illegal act and the mere fact that all of them could not be convicted separately in respect of each of the offences has no relevancy in considering the question whether the offence of conspiracy has been committed. They are all guilty of the offence of conspiracy to illegal acts, though for individual offence all of them may not be liable. “ The basic ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy as defined under Section 120-A I.P.C. are (i)An agreement between two or more persons; (ii)The agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done either (a) an illegal act; or (b) an act which is not illegal in itself but is done by illegal means. The meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing or causing to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means is the sine qua non of criminal conspiracy. The offence can be proved largely from the inferences drawn from the acts or illegal omission committed by the conspirators in pursuance of a common design in as much as the conspiracy is always hatched in secrecy and it is impossible to adduce direct evidence of the common intention of the conspirators. The entire agreement is to be viewed as a whole and it has to be ascertained as to what in fact the conspirators intended to do or the object they wanted to achieve. The essence of criminal conspiracy is the unlawful combination and ordinarily the offence is complete when the combination is framed. The entire agreement is to be viewed as a whole and it has to be ascertained as to what in fact the conspirators intended to do or the object they wanted to achieve. The essence of criminal conspiracy is the unlawful combination and ordinarily the offence is complete when the combination is framed. Encouragement and support which co-conspirators give to one another rendering enterprises possible which, if left to individual effort, would have been impossible, furnish the ground for visiting conspirators and abettors with condign punishment (Ref:- AIR 2008 SC 2991 , Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi-v- State of Maharashtra; (1980) 2 SCC 465 , Shivnarayan Laxminarayan Joshi –v- State of Maharashtra, 2013 (3) SCALE 565 , Yakub Abdul Razaq Menon –v- State of Maharashtra; AIR 2005 SC 128 , K. Hasim-v- State of Tamil Nadu). 5. In case of Siddharam Satilngappa Mhetre –v- State of Mahareshtra reported in (2011) 48 Orissa Criminal Reports (SC)1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with relevant considerations for exercise of power under Section 438 Cr. P.C. held that no inflexible guidelines or strait Jacket formula can be provided for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail in as much as all circumstances and situations of future cannot be clearly visualized for the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. Grant or refusal of anticipatory bail should necessarily depend on facts and circumstances of each case and it was held as follows:- “ 122. The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail: i.The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made; ii.The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; iii.The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; iv.The possibility of the accused’s likelihood to repeat similar or the other offences. v.Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her. vi.Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people. vii.The Courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The Court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. vi.Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people. vii.The Courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The Court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which accused is implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the Court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern; viii.While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused; ix.The Court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; x.Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail. 123. The arrest should be the last option and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative in the facts and circumstances of that case. 124.The Court must carefully examined the entire available record and particularly the allegations which have been directly attributed to the accused and these allegations are corroborated by other material and circumstances on record. 125.These are some of the factors which should be taken into consideration while deciding the anticipatory bail applications. These factors are by no means exhaustive but they are only illustrative in nature because it is difficult to clearly visualize all situation and circumstances in which a person may pray for anticipatory bail. If a wise discretion is exercised by the concerned judge, after consideration of entire material on record then most of the grievances in favour of grant of or refusal of bail will be taken care of. The legislature in its wisdom has entrusted the power to exercise this jurisdiction only to the judges of the superior Courts.“ 6. If a wise discretion is exercised by the concerned judge, after consideration of entire material on record then most of the grievances in favour of grant of or refusal of bail will be taken care of. The legislature in its wisdom has entrusted the power to exercise this jurisdiction only to the judges of the superior Courts.“ 6. The material available on records indicate that at the first instance when M/s D.N. Homes (P) Ltd. applied for availing a term loan of Rs. 20 crores for completing the left over works of their project “Northern Heights” and it was sanctioned by the Head Office of Odisha Gramya Bank, the Branch Manager of Bhubaneswar Branch of Odisha Gramya Bank did not disburse the loan on certain relevant grounds. The Law Officer also gave a negative opinion for the sanction of loan and suggested for taking opinion of an Advocate having considerable repute over civil matters. M/s D.N. Homes (P) Ltd. very cunningly approached another Branch of Odisha Gramya Bank for availing the same loan and the Branch Manager of the said Branch initiated the pre-sanction process i.e., spot visit of the properties even prior to the date of application of the loan i.e. 21.11.2013 and on the very next day i.e., 22.11.2013 he sent the proposal to the Head Office seeking sanction of loan in favour of M/s. D.N. Homes (P) Ltd. The materials so far collected prima facie indicate that the petitioners along with others entered into criminal conspiracy and in pursuance to such conspiracy, they have sanctioned and disbursed the loan of Rs. 20 crores. The further investigation is on as submitted by the learned counsel for the CBI which would indicate the larger conspiracy angle. It further appears that the amount of loan availed from Odisha Gramya Bank was not utilized for the purpose it was taken but for closing the loan of Bank of Baroda. 20 crores. The further investigation is on as submitted by the learned counsel for the CBI which would indicate the larger conspiracy angle. It further appears that the amount of loan availed from Odisha Gramya Bank was not utilized for the purpose it was taken but for closing the loan of Bank of Baroda. When the Bhubaneswar Development Authority had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 26071 of 2012 against the judgment and order dated 27.3.2012 passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 22357 of 2011 and Hon’ble Supreme Court has stayed the impugned order so far as future constructions are concerned on 1.10.2012 which was made absolute on 17.10.2013, the loan amount was sanctioned and disbursed in the month of November 2013 totally not keeping in view the impact of the said order. The entire process of sanction of loan of such a huge amount speaks a lot about the unlawful and unholy combination of the conspirators and it has given encouragement and support to the co-conspirators to achieve the illegal object and such conduct raises “the pointing finger of accusations” against them. The charges in this case are very serious in nature and it relates to criminal conspiracy, cheating and criminal misconduct of the petitioners along with others by abusing their official position and sanctioning and disbursing a huge term loan of Rs. 20 crores to M/s. D.N. Homes (P) Ltd., during November 2013 without taking adequate security and ensuring end utilization of the loan money and thereby causing wrongful loss to the Bank and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves. The materials placed by the learned counsel for the CBI prima facie establish the link of these petitioners in the crime. Without entering into a detailed examination of the evidence at this stage but on a brief examination of the materials, I find prima facie case is available against the petitioners. The materials placed by the learned counsel for the CBI prima facie establish the link of these petitioners in the crime. Without entering into a detailed examination of the evidence at this stage but on a brief examination of the materials, I find prima facie case is available against the petitioners. While dealing with an application for grant of anticipatory bail in an economic offence, apart from the nature and gravity of the accusation, the role played by the accused, the character of the accused, the antecedent of the accused, the possibility of the accused tampering with the witnesses or fleeing away from justice, likelihood of repetition of similar offences in future, reasonable possibility of securing the attendance of the accused at the time of trial are all to be seen with utmost care and caution and exceptional case has to be made out for grant of anticipatory bail particularly in economic offences. Considering the nature and gravity of accusations with utmost care and caution, I am not inclined to exercise the discretionary power under Section 438 of the Code by granting pre-arrest bail to petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioners stands rejected. Application rejected.