JUDGMENT Dr. D.P. CHOUDHURY, J. - This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner for releasing him on bail who is allegedly involved for the offences under Sections 465/468/419/420/471/ 409/120(B) of the I.P.C. 2. The factual matrix leading to the case of the prosecution is that in a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.12889 of 2011 this Court directed the Crime Branch for investigation with regard to financial irregularity in granting loan on the petition filed by one of the guarantors. During investigation the Crime Branch found the present petitioner allegedly with his wife started business of potato trading and cold storage in the name and style of M/s. Subham Supplier & Trading. It is alleged, inter alia, that on 1.10.2007 the petitioner approached the State Bank of India, Industrial Estate Branch, Rasulgarh for financial assistance to the tune of Rs.2 crore for the purpose of regularizing the lease of a cold storage at Bhubaneswar belonging to MARKFED by identifying his wife and another Devi Prasad Tripathy as guarantor. The Bank authorities also recommended proposal for granting loan. Ultimately the petitioner took the loan after submitting application proposing the names of Gouranga Pradhan of Sikharpur, Cuttack, Jata Sahu and Golap Sahu of Ranihat, Cuttack as guarantors who furnished details of their landed property. When the loan amount was not paid, notice under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 was issued to Golap Sahoo who approached this Court through the aforesaid writ application by disputing her identity. During investigation it came to light that the present petitioner has allegedly arranged one Pitabasa Behera of Balikuda, Cuttack and another Mamata Kandi of Choudwar to impersonate Gouranga Pradhan and Golap Sahoo, respectively to become guarantors and took the loan. When the petitioner was found to have committed the offence of cheating, criminal breach of trust and other offences, F.I.R. was registered and charge-sheet was submitted after due investigation. 3. Mr. S.S. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case because the petitioner took the lease of cold storage of MARKFED situated at Patia, Bhubaneswar through competitive bidding process and he had availed a loan from the State Bank of India after fulfilling all the required formalities. 3. Mr. S.S. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case because the petitioner took the lease of cold storage of MARKFED situated at Patia, Bhubaneswar through competitive bidding process and he had availed a loan from the State Bank of India after fulfilling all the required formalities. The petitioner has furnished the guarantors and the banking authorities after verifying their antecedents and identity, they were accepted as guarantors. It is further submitted that it is the Bank authorities who have played mischief in granting loan and the entire allegation is civil in nature. He further submitted that the co accused persons have been already released on bail by this Court under different bail applications. The petitioner has been also investigated in other criminal case like E.O.W. (Odisha) P.S. Case No.06 dated 19.3.2013 for allegedly committed cheating and forgery while taking loan from the HDFC Bank for a sum of Rs.5.25 crores but in that case he has also been granted bail by this Court. Since charge-sheet has been submitted and there is no chance of tampering the evidence directly or indirectly, the petitioner may be released on bail with any condition as deemed fit and proper. 4. Mr. Priyabrata Tripathy, learned Additional Standing Counsel submitted that the petitioner is the master mind of availing public money as loan with dishonest intention of cheating and misappropriating funds from the Bank. He further submitted that the petitioner in connivance with Bank officials arranged fake guarantors to avail loan. Not only this but also the petitioner in connivance with Bank officials has also defaulted for payment of money and by that the Account of the petitioner went to NPA causing huge loss to the Bank. Further he submitted that the petitioner involves with many offences and in the event of his release on bail, he will not be available for further proceeding in this case. So, he strongly opposes the bail. DISCUSSION 5. The law on the consideration of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been well settled by catena of decisions. Some of the decisions are described below as touching such principle the present bail petition is required to be disposed of. 6. So, he strongly opposes the bail. DISCUSSION 5. The law on the consideration of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been well settled by catena of decisions. Some of the decisions are described below as touching such principle the present bail petition is required to be disposed of. 6. It is also reported in AIR 1980 SC 785 (Niranjan Singh and another v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others) where their Lordships observed at para-3 in the following manner:- “Detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits should be avoided while passing orders on bail applications. No party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. To be satisfied about a prima facie case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself”. 7. With due respect to the decision, it appears that while considering bail petition it should not be detailed examination of the evidence. It should be gist of the material available on record to determine whether bail should be granted or not. On the other hand, a prima facie case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive discussion on the merits in the order itself. 8. It is reported in (2004) 7 SCC 528 (Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Papu Yadav and another) where their Lordships also directed to consider the relevant factors before granting bail. Their Lordships at para-11 discussed below the parameters to grant bail: “11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The Court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the Court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are: (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the Court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are: (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence. (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant. (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge; (See Ram Govind Upadhyay Vs. Sudarshan Singh; (2002) 3 SCC 598 and Puran Vs. Rambilas; (2001) 6 SCC 338 ).” 9. The above decisions have been also well observed in the decision reported in (2014) 16 SCC 508 (Neeru Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another) where their Lordships have observed at paras-10 and 11: “10. In Chaman Lal v. State of U.P.; (2004) 7 SCC 525 , the Court has laid down certain factors, namely, the nature of accusation, severity of punishment in case of conviction and the character of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant, and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, which are to be kept in mind. 11. In this context, we may profitably refer to the dictum in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee; (2010) 14 SCC 496 , wherein it has been held that normally this Court does not interfere with the order passed by the High Court when a bail application is allowed or declined, but the High Court has a duty to exercise its discretion cautiously and strictly. Regard being had to the basic principles laid down by this Court from time to time, the Court enumerated number of considerations and some of the considerations which are relevant for the present purpose are; whether there is likelihood of the offence being repeated and whether there is danger of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.” 10. It is reported in (2010) 14 SCC 496 ; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and another where their Lordships have observed at para-9 in the following manner: “9. We are of the opinion that the impugned order is clearly unsustainable. It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. We are of the opinion that the impugned order is clearly unsustainable. It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.” (See State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi; (2005) 8 SCC 21 , Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT of Delhi; (2001) 4 SCC 280 , and Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh; (2002) 3 SCC 598 )”. 11. With due respect to the decision, their Lordships have also observed therein that the criminal antecedents of the accused is also to be considered while granting bail. 12. Now adverting to the facts of this case, it appears from the record that W.P.(C) No.12889 of 2011 was filed by co-accused Golap Sahoo praying for C.B.I. enquiry to the fact that she has been impersonated as guarantor to grant loan to the petitioner and basing on such averment in W.P.(C) No.12889 of 2011 this Court directed the Crime Branch to make investigation. 13. The statement of Sanjibita Ray, Tahasildar, Cuttack Sadar, Cuttack shows that the properties furnished by the guarantors stand in the name of Gouranga Pradhan and also in the name of Jahari Sahoo, Jatta Sahoo and Golap Sahoo. The concerned R.O.Rs. have been also produced showing the Record of Right in favour of the aforesaid persons. The statement of Sri Ranjit Das, Assistant Settlement Officer (Technical), Major Settlement Office, Cuttack also shows the draft R.O.R. is also correct but the seal used in the R.O.R. is not correct. The concerned R.O.Rs. have been also produced showing the Record of Right in favour of the aforesaid persons. The statement of Sri Ranjit Das, Assistant Settlement Officer (Technical), Major Settlement Office, Cuttack also shows the draft R.O.R. is also correct but the seal used in the R.O.R. is not correct. The statement of Pratap Behera, Gajendra Sahoo and other officials disclose that after due verification by banking authorities loan has been sanctioned. It appears from the statement of Prasanna Kumar Rath that when the loan amount was not paid by the present petitioner, who is the borrower, notice was issued under the SARFAESI Act. The entire materials on record disclose the dispute of civil consequence. There is no direct material produced by the Crime Branch showing the present petitioner is alone responsible for any type of cheating by impersonation or forgery. On the other hand, prima facie case against the petitioner is subject to trial in this case. 14. It also appears that co-accused persons those are guarantors and Banking officials including said Jata Sahoo are on bail. The petitioner in similar case has also been granted bail by this Court in BLAPL No.8424 of 2016. There is no any material to show that the petitioner in the event of release on bail, there is every chance of tampering with prosecution evidence directly or indirectly and since the petitioner is a local person, there is no chance of his absconding and fact that charge-sheet has already been submitted, he is entitled to bail. 15. There is no any material to show that the petitioner in the event of release on bail, there is every chance of tampering with prosecution evidence directly or indirectly and since the petitioner is a local person, there is no chance of his absconding and fact that charge-sheet has already been submitted, he is entitled to bail. 15. Considering the aforesaid submissions and the material as discussed, let the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar in G.R. Case No.1289 of 2012 arising out of CID, CB, Odisha, Cuttack P.S. Case No.15 (EOW) of 2012 with the conditions that (i) he would furnish cash security of Rs.1,00,00,000=00 (Rupees one crore) which shall be kept in fixed deposit accruing interest in any nationalized Bank or the property security of equal value; (ii) he would not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly in any manner; (iii) he would appear before the Court in seisin over the matter on each date of posting of the case; (iv) he would submit the Passport, if any, to the trial Court; (v) he would not commit any offence while on bail; (vi) he would appear before the Investigating Officer of this case as and when required for the purpose of further investigation, if any. The BLAPL is disposed of accordingly. BLAPL is disposed of.