JUDGMENT S.K. Sahoo, J. - The petitioners Pitambar Sahoo, Saroj Kumar Prusty, Debasis Hazra and Lalit Kumar Soni in the above bail applications have approached this Court for bail under section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Mangalabag P.S. Case No.297 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1504 of 2020 pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C. (City), Cuttack in which charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioners on 14.05.2021 for the offences under sections 419, 420, 411, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471, 379 read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code keeping the investigation open under section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. The applications of the petitioners for bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack were rejected as per orders dated 01.03.2021, 18.02.2021, 16.04.2021 and 12.04.2021 respectively. Since all bail applications arise out of one case, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, those were heard analogously and disposed of by this common order. 2. The factual matrix of the case at hand, is that one Samir Debnath, the Area Head of Link Road area of M/s. Manappuram Finance Ltd., Cuttack Division (hereafter in short Manappuram) lodged the first information report before the Inspector in-charge, Mangalabag police station against twenty four accused persons including the four petitioners stating therein that Manappuram used to lend money against pledged gold ornaments through its branches. Accused nos.1 to 20 were the customers of Manappuram and accused nos.21 to 24 were the previous employees of Manappuram. The Branch Head/Assistant Branch Head was the custodian and authorized to sanction the loans against the pledging of gold basing on the purity of the gold after verification of KYC of the customers. It is further stated in the F.I.R. that the Inspector in- charge of Lalbag Police Station came to Manappuram on 25.11.2020 and seized 6714.3 grams of gold ornaments from the Bajrakabati Branch of Manappuram on the accusation that those ornaments were involved in Lalbag P.S. Case No. 294 of 2020. During course of investigation of the said case, which was under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, basing on the statements of the customers/accused, the ornaments were seized. In the said case, the police had already seized gold from the pledged accounts belonging to accused nos. During course of investigation of the said case, which was under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, basing on the statements of the customers/accused, the ornaments were seized. In the said case, the police had already seized gold from the pledged accounts belonging to accused nos. 1 to 20 as they had taken gold loan by pledging theft gold ornaments and that they had stolen away gold ornaments from 2018 gradually on various dates and fraudulently they availed gold loans from Manappuram. During enquiry by police officials, the accused nos. 1 to 20 confessed that they had pledged those stolen gold ornaments in Manappuram to avail loans. It is further stated in the F.I.R. that at the time of pledging of the gold ornaments, Manappuram used to collect a declaration from each and every customer that the gold ornaments pledged were the absolute property of the customer and that no other person was having any right, title, claim or interest over the gold ornaments and that he had got absolute right to pledge the gold. Further the customer is to accept all the terms and conditions of the gold loan and also issue demand promissory note as part of the loan documentation. It is stated that Manappuram received the pledged gold as security for the loan advanced on the implied and lucid promise from the accused persons that those ornaments pledged were their absolute property. It is also stated in the F.I.R. that Manappuram lost the gold ornaments which were the only security to the loan and thereby Manappuram sustained a total loss of Rs.2,13,24,884/- (rupees two crores thirteen lakh twenty four thousand eight hundred eighty four only) and interest thereon. It is further stated in the F.I.R. that Manappuram used to collect KYC (Know Your Customer) documents i.e. Aadhar Card/PAN Card/Votor ID Card/Ration Card/Driving License as per RBI guidelines whenever a new customer was coming for availing gold loan and each customer used to have an customer ID basing on the KYC document submitted by the customer. It is also stated that Manappuram did not allow to create ID without live photograph of the customers. Accused nos.1 to 20 being colluded with accused nos.21 to 24 created customer IDs without following the guidelines of Manappuram for wrongful gain. It is also stated that Manappuram did not allow to create ID without live photograph of the customers. Accused nos.1 to 20 being colluded with accused nos.21 to 24 created customer IDs without following the guidelines of Manappuram for wrongful gain. It is also stated in the F.I.R. that the accused/customers being aware of fact that they were not entitled to the gold ornaments pledged by them, induced Manappuram to part with the loan amounts, thereby the act of the accused persons created wrongful gain to them and huge loss was caused to Manappuram. On the basis of such first information report, Mangalabag P.S. Case No.297 dated 12.12.2020 was registered against the petitioners and others under sections 419, 420, 411, 406, 409 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. During course of investigation, it was found that Manappuram used to lend money against gold through its branches. At the time of pledging of the gold ornaments, Manappuram collected a declaration from each and every customer that the gold ornaments pledged are his/her absolute property and no other person is having any right, title, claim or interest over the gold ornaments and he has absolute right to pledge them. The customers accepted all the terms and conditions of the gold loan of Manappuram and a demand promissory note (undertaking) issued to the customers taking their signatures on the same as a part of the loan documentation. Manappuram received the pledges for the loan advanced. Accordingly, the accused persons, namely, (1) Lalit Kumar Soni (petitioner in BLAPL No. 3189 of 2021),(2) Golap Sahoo, (3) Pravat Kumar Nayak, (4) Rajkishore Sahoo, (5) Lipun Behera, (6) Suman Mandal, (7) Bapuni Nayak, (8) Prakash Chandra Sahu, (9) Basanta Behera, (10) Hemalata Mohanty, (11) Prakash Kumar Sahoo, (12) Kabita Mantry, (13) Kartika Chandra Patra, (14) Dasarathi Sahoo, (15) Anil Kumar Nayak, (16) Padmini Behera, (17) Nilamani Saha, (18) Debasis Hazra (petitioner in BLAPL No. 3287 of 2021), (19) Saroj Kumar Prusty (petitioner in BLAPL No. 1811 of 2021) and (20) Nityananda Sahoo availed gold loan by depositing pledged gold ornaments for security of their loan with all the terms and conditions of Manappuram. On 25.11.2020, the Inspector in-charge of Lalbag Police Station came to the branch office of Manapuram and seized 6714.3 gram of gold ornaments from the branch stating that the said gold is involved in Lalbag P.S. Case No.294 of 2020 under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. During investigation of the above case of Lalbag police station, it was established that the police had already seized gold from the pledged accounts of above accused persons and they had taken gold loan by pledging theft gold ornaments and gradually from 2018 on various dates, they availed gold loans from Manappuram in fraudulent manner by pledging those stolen gold ornaments as security. During availing of gold loan, they submitted KYC (Know Your customer), documents i.e. Adhar Card/PAN Card/Votor ID Card/Ration Card/Driving License as per RBI guidelines. It was further revealed that though Manappuram was not allowing to create an ID without the photograph of the customer, but the above accused persons nos.1 to 20 being colluded with staff/Ex- staff of the Manappuram, namely, (1) Silu Mantry, (2) Gitanjali Behera, (3) Lala Ranjan Ray, (4) Pitambar Sahoo (petitioner in BLAPL No. 1887 of 2021) all are of B.K. Road branch, Cuttack created Customer ID without following the guidelines of company for their wrongful gain and thereby causing wrongful loss of Rs.2,13,24,884/- to Manappuram. During course of investigation, the Investigating Officer examined the informant, visited the spot, examined the witnesses, seized the copy of Reserve Bank Guidelines on Fair Practices code for non-banking financial corporation, copy of by- law of Manappuram, copy regarding Duty Distribution of Employees of Manappuram, copy regarding procedure for sanction of loan, loan particulars of customers, namely, Lalit Kumar Soni, Golap Sahoo, Pravat Kumar Nayak, Rajkishore Sahoo, Nilamani Saha, Debasis Hazra, Lipuna Behera, Suman Mandal Mohanty, Nityananda Sahoo, Prakash Kumar Sahoo, Kabita Mantry, Kartik Chandra Patra, Dasarathi Sahoo, Padmini Behera, Anil Kumar Nayak, appointment letter of Manappuram in favour of petitioner Pitambar Sahoo (BLAPL No.1887 of 2021), Chandan Kumar Jena, salary statement of Pitambar Sahoo, Gettanjali Behera, Chandan Kumar Jena, Lala Ranjan Ray, report regarding stolen gold of Manappuram addressed to the Manager, Vigilance Department of Manappuram and experience details of staffs on production by the complainant. During the course of investigation, the investigating officer found prima facie case under sections 419, 420, 411, 406, 409, 379 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons, namely, Lalit Kumar Soni (petitioner in BLAPL No. 3189 of 2021), Rajkishore Sahoo, Prakash Kumar Sahoo, Nilamani Saha, Debasish Hazra(petitioner in BLAPL No. 3287 of 2021), Saroj Kumar Prusty (petitioner in BLAPL No. 1811 of 2021), Pitambar Sahoo (petitioner in BLAPL No. 1887 of 2021) and Lala Amrut Sagar Roy and others, who colluded with the present staffs, namely, Pitambar Sahoo(petitioner in BLAPL No. 1887 of 2021) and Gettanjali Behera and ex-staffs Lala Ranjan Ray and Silu Mantry of Manappuram and Lala Amrut Sagar Roy of Indian Infoline Finance Ltd., Nayasarak Branch, Cuttack (hereafter in short, IIFL) to have made conspiracy and pledged the theft gold ornaments by creating ID violating the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India as well as bye-law of Manappuram causing huge loss of about Rs.2,13,24,884/-. Since the petitioners had already been arrested in connection with Lalbag P.S. Case No. 294 of 2020, the Investigating Officer submitted remand report in respect of the said accused persons. It is further revealed during the course of investigation that the petitioners and other accused persons hatched criminal conspiracy with dishonest intention to derive wrongful gain by inflicting wrongful loss to the Manappuram and IIFL in a fraudulent manner. The investigation further revealed that the accused persons having a pre-meditation consent to cheat the IIFL and Manappuram forged and fabricated a number of documents in clandestine manner to plant identity of the so- called account holders and after creation of such accounts, the accused persons operated the accounts and could succeed to receive cash against the pledged gold, which actually did not belong to them. The offensive act of the accused persons in forging the documents pertaining to the identity of so-called non- existing customer amounts to forgery of valuable security, which is punishable under section 467 of the Indian Penal Code. Since forgery was committed for the purpose of cheating, sections 468/471 of the Indian Penal Code are attracted against the accused persons as after manufacturing the documents, they used the same as genuine having absolute knowledge that the documents are forged. Since forgery was committed for the purpose of cheating, sections 468/471 of the Indian Penal Code are attracted against the accused persons as after manufacturing the documents, they used the same as genuine having absolute knowledge that the documents are forged. During investigation, it was revealed that the petitioners Lalit Kumar Soni and Saroj Kumar Prusty made several transactions in their accounts with Manappuram and they pledged the theft gold ornaments of IIFL in Manappuram with the knowledge of the staffs of Manappuram, namely, petitioner Pitambar Sahoo and Geeetanjali Behera. The investigation further revealed that soon after transaction, the cash was transferred to the account of accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy through UPI (Phone payment), which clearly proved that he was fully aware about the pledging of theft gold ornaments or sent the pledged gold ornaments of IIFL for depositing at Manappuram through the petitioners Lalit Kumar Soni, Saroj Kumar Prusty, Pitambar Sahoo and others. As investigation of the case could not be completed, but the statutory period was going to be completed, first charge sheet was submitted keeping the investigation open for verification of involvement of other customers, receipt of transaction details of the bank account of the alleged customers, physical verification, examination of all the customers/ staff and sample signature of petitioner Pitambar Sahoo and other staff of Manappuram. 4. At this stage, before proceeding further, I would like to jot down the accusation against each of the petitioners. (i) Accusation against the petitioner Pitambar Sahoo (BLAPL No. 1887 of 2021): During investigation, it is revealed that the petitioner Pitambar Sahoo, the Ex-Branch Head of Manappuram made criminal conspiracy with accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy of IIFL and other accused persons and misappropriated public money as a banker by pledging the stolen gold of IIFL by opening fake customer ID without following guidelines of Manappuram for wrongful gain. The petitioner created accounts in the name of his mother Golap Sahoo and brother Nityananda Sahoo deviating all the guidelines of Manappuram and knowingly re-pledged the stolen gold of IIFL in Manappuram in their names and availed cash loan. It is also revealed that he placed the photographs of different persons, putting signature in their name and also placed his own photograph in the account of his brother Nityananda Sahoo and gave wrong mobile number. It is also revealed that he placed the photographs of different persons, putting signature in their name and also placed his own photograph in the account of his brother Nityananda Sahoo and gave wrong mobile number. He misused his power and misappropriated the public money by pledging stolen gold of IIFL in their accounts at Manappuram. He also opened two fake accounts in the name of Suman Mandal and Lipun Behera without their knowledge by forging the documents and using it as genuine and has changed the fathers name of Suman Mandal as Jasobanta Mandal instead of Hadu Mandal and pledged the stolen gold of IIFL in their names. The statements of Lipun Behera and Suman Mandal proved the criminal conspiracy in between the petitioner Pitambar Sahoo and accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy. The investigation further revealed that transactions were made between Lala Amrut Sagar Roy and Manappuram though Lala Amrut Sagar Roy had no pledged account in Manappuram and he had not pledged any gold in his name. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses and seized number of documents which showed the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged crime in connivance with other accused persons. (ii) Accusation against the petitioner Saroj Kumar Prusty (BLAPL No. 1811 of 2021): During the course of investigation, it is revealed that the petitioner Saroj Kumar Prusty made criminal conspiracy with accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy, petitioner Pitambar Sahoo and other accused persons and knowingly re-pledged the stolen gold weighing 192.50 grams of IIFL in Manappuram and availed cash of Rs.6,32,159/- (six lakhs thirty two thousand one hundred fifty nine) giving false undertaking that the stolen gold ornaments belonged to him. As all the gold ornaments pledged by the petitioner were stolen from IIFL, those were seized in connection with Lalbag P.S. Case No. 294 of 2020. During the test identification parade in respect of the jewelleries, it was revealed that the jewellery of Vinod Singh, Nikhil Kumar Dey which were pledged at IIFL were stolen and re-pledged at Manappuram by the petitioner in connivance with his associates. The documents regarding account details, quantity of pledged gold, details of outstanding loan amount of accused persons were seized, which proved his involvement in the case. The investigation further revealed that five nos. The documents regarding account details, quantity of pledged gold, details of outstanding loan amount of accused persons were seized, which proved his involvement in the case. The investigation further revealed that five nos. of bank transactions were made by the petitioner with the principal accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy from his Bandhan Bank, Chandi Chhak Branch account for the period from 04.08.2020 to 06.08.2020 and a total sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- (one lakh ten thousand) was debited from the account of the petitioner to the account of the principal accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy, which proves criminal conspiracy between the two. The investigation further revealed that the mobile number, photograph and signature, which were given at the time of opening of account in Manappuram by the petitioner Saroj Kumar Prusty are genuine. During the course of investigation, the confessional statement of accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy regarding deposit of gold at Manappuram by the petitioner got corroborated by the statements of Area Manager Sameer Debnath, Ranjan Kumar Sahoo, Priyambada Mohanty, Truptimayee Parida, Prabhudutta Dash and Sanjay Kumar Kap. (iii) Accusation against the petitioner Debasish Hazra (BLAPL No. 3287 of 2021): During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer found that the petitioner Debasish Hazra made criminal conspiracy with accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy, petitioner Pitambar Sahoo and other accused persons and knowingly re- pledged the stolen gold weighing 1215.70 grams of IIFL in Manappuram and availed Rs.37,10,026/- of cash as loan. He also gave false undertaking that the stolen gold ornaments belonged to his own. It is also revealed during investigation that all the gold jewelleries pledged by petitioner Debasish Hazra were seized in connection with Lalbag P.S.Case No. 294 of 2020. During the identification process, the gold ornaments pledged at IIFL, which belonged Ashok Kumar Sahoo, Asit Kumar Sahu, Dhananjaya Kumar Dagra, Harekrushna Sahoo, Santoshi Sahoo, Shyam Sundar Ghosh, Sk.Ebrahim, Sonali Lenka, Tapas Kumar Sahoo were found to have been stolen and re-pledged at Manappuram by the petitioner in connivance with other accused persons to avail loan. The investigation further revealed that during opening of the pledge account at Manappuram, the phone number given by the petitioner was found to be genuine. The investigation further revealed that bank transaction was made from accused Lalas ICICI bank account to the account of the petitioner. The investigation further revealed that during opening of the pledge account at Manappuram, the phone number given by the petitioner was found to be genuine. The investigation further revealed that bank transaction was made from accused Lalas ICICI bank account to the account of the petitioner. Confessional statement of accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy implicating the petitioner regarding deposit of pledged gold of IIFL at Manappuram stood corroborated from the statements of Area Manager Sameer Debnath, Ranjan Kumar Sahoo, Priyambada Mohanty, Truptimayee Parida, Prabhudutta Dash, Sanjay Kumar Kap so also the involvement of petitioner in the alleged occurrence. (iv) Accusation against the petitioner Lalit Kumar Soni (BLAPL No. 3189 of 2021): During the course of investigation, it was revealed that the petitioner Lalit Kumar Soni made criminal conspiracy with accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy, petitioner Pitambar Sahoo and other accused persons and knowingly re-pledged the stolen gold weighing 795.60 grams of IIFL in Manappuram and availed cash loan of Rs.24,98,165/- and he had not repaid the loan amount. The investigation further revealed that the petitioner had given false undertaking that the stolen gold ornaments belonged to him. It was also revealed during investigation that all the gold jewelleries pledged by petitioner were seized in connection with Lalbag P.S. Case No. 294 of 2020. During the identification process, the gold ornaments pledged at IIFL, which belonged to Dhananjay Dagara, Manas Kumar Rout, Pradip Kumar Ray, petitioner Saroj Kumar Prusty, Soumya Ranjan Muduli, Sukanta Mohanty and Venkatesh Sethy were found to be stolen and re- pledged at Manappuram by the petitioner in connivance with other accused persons. The investigation further revealed that during opening of the pledge account at Manappuram, the phone number given by the petitioner was found to be genuine. The investigation further revealed that a sum of Rs.70,000/- has been debited from the HDFC Bank account of the petitioner to the account of the principal accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy on 10.10.2020. The petitioner used his own mobile phone to get new loans by pledging the gold of IIFL in his own name in connivance with the other employees and agents and received loans of huge amount in that respect. The petitioner used his own mobile phone to get new loans by pledging the gold of IIFL in his own name in connivance with the other employees and agents and received loans of huge amount in that respect. The confessional statement of accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy regarding deposit of gold at Manappuram by the petitioner got corroborated by the statements of Area Manager Sameer Debnath, Ranjan Kumar Sahoo, Priyambada Mohanty, Truptimayee Parida, Prabhudutta Dash, Sanjay Kumar Kap and others regarding involvement of petitioner in the alleged occurrence. 5. Mr. Dharanidhar Nayak, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner Pitambar Sahoo in BLAPL No. 1887 of 2021 submitted that the petitioner was the Branch Manager of Manappuram and he was taken on remand in this case on 19.01.2021. It is further contended that during his entire service career, the petitioner has performed his duty sincerely in his official capacity and he has neither issued fake accounts to the customers nor misappropriated any money. It is argued that in his official capacity, the petitioner has provided loans to different customers against the gold pledged in the branch after due verification and there was no malafide intention of the petitioner while sanctioning the loans nor any act of misappropriation was done by him in course of sanction of loans. Learned counsel further contended that the gold items were in the custody of the branch and those were never kept with the petitioner and he has not misappropriated any gold ornaments at any point of time. It is further contended that some customers might have committed mistake in order to fulfill their ulterior motive, which was behind the back of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the basic ingredients for constituting the offences under which charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner are lacking and therefore, the bail application may be considered favourably. Mr. Soura Chandra Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Saroj Kumar Prusty in BLAPL No. 1811 of 2021 contended that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 27.11.2020 and he is a victim of the circumstances. The so- called criminal conspiracy between the accused persons is based on the confessional statement of the petitioner and the co- accused persons before police, which is not admissible. The test identification parades of the jewelleries were not conducted in accordance with law. The so- called criminal conspiracy between the accused persons is based on the confessional statement of the petitioner and the co- accused persons before police, which is not admissible. The test identification parades of the jewelleries were not conducted in accordance with law. There are no materials that the petitioner had knowledge that the gold ornaments, which he pledged availing loan were stolen from IIFL and therefore, the bail application may be favourably considered. Mr. Devashis Panda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Debasish Hazra in BLAPL No. 3287 of 2021 submitted that the petitioner was taken on remand in this case on 19.01.2021. He further submitted that there are no materials to prove that the petitioner had taken loan by pledging theft gold ornaments of IIFL, rather a false case has been foisted against the petitioner. He further submitted that some theft gold ornaments of IIFL might have been pledged in Manappuram but the gold ornaments pledged by the petitioner are not theft materials. According to him, neither the petitioner pledged the theft gold ornaments nor he has got any involvement in the crime. Learned counsel further submitted that basing on the statements of the co-accused persons in connection with Lalbag P.S. Case No. 294 of 2020, the petitioner has been implicated and remanded in this case and therefore, the bail application may be favourably considered. Mr. Avijit Patnaik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Lalit Kumar Soni in BLAPL No. 3189 of 2021 submitted that the petitioner is a jewellery shop owner and he was taken on remand in this case since 19.01.2021 and there is no clinching materials on record to show that the petitioner had connived with the co-accused persons in the misappropriation of ornaments of the customers pledged in IIFL to avail the gold loan by repledging in Manappuram. Learned counsel further submitted that the allegation of the informant that the petitioner along with others re-pledged the theft gold ornaments of IIFL in Manappuram is not based on any evidence. It is further submitted that the petitioner being a jewellery shop owner, he deals with a lot of people and legally procures gold from them for various other practical uses for his business and the gold seized from Manappuram belonged to him and the same were pledged by him. It is further submitted that the petitioner being a jewellery shop owner, he deals with a lot of people and legally procures gold from them for various other practical uses for his business and the gold seized from Manappuram belonged to him and the same were pledged by him. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner while purchasing gold from accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy, had absolutely no knowledge that those were the stolen gold of IIFL and he purchased the gold on good faith as Lala Amrut Sagar Roy was a business customer since long. Learned counsel further submitted that the allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner being colluded with accused nos. 21 to 24 created fake customer I.Ds without following the guidelines of Manappuram cannot be accepted and therefore, the bail application may be favourably considered. 6. Mr. Soubhagya Ketan Nayak, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State being ably assisted by Mr. Tapas Kumar Praharaj, learned Standing Counsel submitted that the statements of Sameer Debnath, the informant and other co- employees of Manappuram indicated that after the audit was conducted in IIFL, number of illegalities committed by the main accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy in connivance with others including the Branch Manager of IIFL and Manappuram came to fore. It is submitted that huge unlawful cash transaction between the accounts of the petitioners and the account of the accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy, conduct of the petitioner Pitambar Sahoo (BLAPL No. 1887 of 2021) in pledging huge quantity of gold of IIFL in the name of his own mother and brother in Manappuram fraudulently in connivance with accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy, prima facie makes out the offences against him. Similarly, the petitioners Saroj Kumar Prusty, Debasis Hazra and Lalit Kumar Soni re-pledged the stolen gold ornaments of IIFL and availed gold loan and the jewelleries were identified by the persons to be theirs in the T.I. parade as they had pledged it in IIFL. He further submitted that during investigation of Lalbag P.S. Case No. 294 of 2020, the Investigating Officer came to know that the present petitioners along with the staff of IIFL and others being colluded with each other have re-pledged the theft gold of IIFL in Manappuram and availed huge loan and thereby innocent customers have suffered huge loss and Manappuram has also suffered financial instability. He further submitted that when the investigation is still under progress on some important angles and final charge sheet is yet to be submitted, at this stage the petitioners should not be released on bail as there is likelihood of derailing the ongoing investigation. 7. Mr. Asit Kumar Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for Manappuram submitted that in connivance of all the petitioners, economic fraud has been committed in both IIFL and Manappuram and huge amount of loans has been availed and thereby innocent customers have suffered huge loss and Manappuram has also suffered financial instability. It is argued that the petitioners being hand in glove with each other committed the crime in a pre-planned way keeping an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the society and therefore, they should not be released on bail particularly when there is chance of tampering with the evidence. Reliance was placed on the decisions of the Honble Supreme Court in the cases of State of Gujarat -Vrs.- Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal and others reported in (1987) 2 Supreme Court Cases 364, Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy -Vrs.- CBI reported in (2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases 439 and Aswini Kumar Patra -Vrs.- Republic of India reported in (2021) 84 Odisha Criminal Reports 1. 8. Economic offences are always considered as grave offences as it involves deep rooted conspiracy and huge loss of public fund. Such offences are committed with cool calculation and deliberate design solely with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. In such type of offences, while granting bail, the Court has to keep in mind, inter alia, the larger interest of public and State. The nature and seriousness of an economic offence and its impact on the society are always important considerations in such a case and those aspects must squarely be dealt with by the Court while passing an order on bail applications. (Ref: Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal (supra), Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy (supra) and Aswini Kumar Patra (supra)). It is the settled law that detailed examination of evidence and elaborate discussion on merits of the case should not be undertaken while adjudicating a bail application. (Ref: Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal (supra), Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy (supra) and Aswini Kumar Patra (supra)). It is the settled law that detailed examination of evidence and elaborate discussion on merits of the case should not be undertaken while adjudicating a bail application. The nature of accusation, the severity of punishment in case of conviction, the nature of supporting evidence, the criminal antecedents of the accused, if any, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the evidence of the witnesses, apprehension of threat to the witnesses, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial and above all the larger interests of the public and State are required to be taken note of by the Court while granting bail. 9. Adverting to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respective parties and analyzing the oral and documentary evidence on record carefully, it appears that there are prima facie materials to show criminal conspiracy between the petitioners and the co-accused persons. The stolen gold of IIFL were pledged in Manappuram by opening fake accounts without following the guidelines and huge loan was availed against pledged gold and misappropriated. The manner in which the petitioner Pitambar Sahoo being the Ex-Branch Head of Manappuram has conducted himself in the opening of fake loan accounts and grant of loan against pledging of stolen gold of IIFL, is very suspicious. He has even availed loan in the names of his mother and brother by pledging the stolen gold ornaments of IIFL. Since the guidelines of Manappuram were not followed at the time of grant of loan, fake photographs and fake signatures were used at the time of opening of the loan accounts as well as sanction of loan, it prima facie shows that without the connivance of the petitioner Pitambar Sahoo, it could not have been possible to avail the loan of such huge amount in so many accounts. The fact that the pledged gold of the petitioners were identified in the T.I. parade as the pledged gold of IIFL by the genuine customers and particularly in view of the bank transactions between the petitioners with the main accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy, it prima facie makes out the offences under which charge sheet has been submitted. The fact that the pledged gold of the petitioners were identified in the T.I. parade as the pledged gold of IIFL by the genuine customers and particularly in view of the bank transactions between the petitioners with the main accused Lala Amrut Sagar Roy, it prima facie makes out the offences under which charge sheet has been submitted. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding the innocence of the petitioners is not at all acceptable at this stage in view of the oral and documentary evidence collected against them during investigation. Moreover, the investigation is still under progress and it appears from the charge sheet that many more important areas of the case are still under investigation and many vital links in the crime are yet to be unearthed and at this stage, if the petitioners are enlarged on bail, there is every likelihood of derailing the ongoing investigation and there is also every chance of influencing the witnesses. In view of the foregoing discussions, without detailed examination of the evidence on record and elaborate discussion on the merits of the case, but considering the nature and gravity of accusation, the nature of supporting evidence to substantiate such accusation, the pre-planned manner in which the crime has been committed, the financial loss suffered by Manappuram on account of such crime, the incriminating articles seized from the petitioners and moreover, the severity of punishment in case of conviction and since huge amount of public money has been misappropriated, the impact of the crime on the society and in the larger interest of public and State, I am not inclined to release the petitioners on bail. Accordingly, all the bail applications being devoid of merits, stand rejected. Before parting, I would like to place it on record by way of abundant caution that whatever has been stated hereinabove in this order has been so said only for the purpose of disposing of the prayer for bail made by the petitioners. Nothing contained in this order shall be construed as expression of a final opinion on any of the issues of fact or law arising for decision in the case which shall naturally have to be done by the trial Court at the appropriate stage of the trial.