JAYA ROY, J. - (1.) HEARD counsel appearing for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the C.B.I. Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with the case registered under Sections 120B read with Sections 420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
(2.) COUNSEL appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a 'Manager Advance' of Allahabad Bank, Hazaribagh and he is not named in the F.I.R. It is further submitted that the prosecution case in brief is that accused Ram Tahal Mahto, Mahadeo Prasad Mehta, Prayag Prasad Mehta and Ajay Kumar entered into a criminal conspiracy amongst themselves and with some unknown persons during the period 2006 -07 on the basis of forged and fabricated collateral security documents were induced by the officers concerned, Allahabad Bank, Main Branch, Hazaribagh to sanction a loan of Rs. 2,65,65,000/ -(Rupees two crores, sixty five lakhs and sixty five thousand) for establishing Cold Storage at village Sindur, Hazaribagh in the name and style of M/s Bajrang Cold Storage, Hazaribagh. It is further alleged that the partners of M/s Bajrang Cold Storage, Hazaribagh by forging and by getting forged signatures and L.T.I. of the said so called guarantors namely Karmi Devi, Nunia Devi and Braj Kishore Mahto on the loan documents, submitted to the Bank for sanction of loan. It is further alleged that the said Cold Storage on which land the same is situated, could not be mortgaged to the Bank and consequently after sanction of loan, the authorities of the bank cannot initiate any legal action to secure possession of the said M/s Bajrang Cold Storage, Hazaribagh and thus the amount of loan became sticky and the said loan amount with interest is at the tune of Rs. 3,37,21,452 (Rupees three cores, thirty seven lakhs, twenty one thousand and four hundred fifty two). It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that as the petitioner is 'Manager Advance' he is not responsible for sanction of any said loan or he is In Charge of inspection of plots or property so mortgaged for the sanction of the aforesaid loan. It is further submitted that there is no complicity of the petitioner in the entire case diary even some of the accused persons namely Kuldip Verma, Sri Mahadeo Prasad Mehta and Suresh Prasad Mehta have confessed their guilt and their statement was recorded under Sections 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which also the name of petitioner has not come as a conspirator or to receive any commission of bribe. Counsel appearing for the C.B.I. has submitted that the petitioner is a 'Manager Advance' of Allahabad Bank, Hazaribagh. At the relevant period, he along with other officers of bank namely Sri Sunil Mittal, the then Branch Manager and with others, on the basis of false and fabricated documents got sanctioned a term of loan of Rs. 2,26,65,000/ - (Rupees two crores, twenty six lakhs and sixty five thousand) and a cash credit loan with a limit of Rs. 39,00,000/ - (Rupees thirty nine lakhs) to the Zonal Office of Allahabad Bank, Hazaribagh to M/s Bajrang Cold Storage, Hazaribagh for establishing cold storage at village Sindur, Hazaribagh and thus they cheated the bank. The loan amount turned Non -Performing assets and on 03.03.2011 an amount of Rs. 3,17,67,706/ - (Rupees three crores, seventeen lakhs, sixty seven thousand and seven hundred six) is due to the bank against the term loans and Rs. 58,38,824/ - (Rupees fifty lakhs, thirty eight thousand and eight hundred twenty four) against cash credit. Mr. Khan has further submitted that mortgage against the loans was not created by the genuine person in whose name the property exist. Therefore, the security of the bank is jeopardized. Thus, the petitioner being the Manager, Advance had played an important role in sanctioning aforesaid huge amount, does not deserve anticipatory bail. Considering the submissions made by the parties and considering the fact that the petitioner was admittedly Manager Advance of Allahabad Bank, Hazaribagh at the relevant period and in his tenure a huge amount of money was advanced to the private persons on the basis of the land which the private persons were not the owner of the land, and forged security documents were induced, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner stands rejected.;