Anant Bijay Singh, J. - (1.) The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with R.C. Case No. 8(S)/ 2014EOW for the offence initially registered under sections 120 (B), r/w 420, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of complaint lodged by Shri Neeraj Raja Singh, Chief Manager, State Bank of India, SME Branch, City Centre, Sector-IV, Bokaro Steel City 827004 addressed to one S.K. Khare, Superintendent of Police/ C.B.I, EOW, Ranchi alleging therein ; (i) That State Bank of India, SME Branch, Ranchi has given loan to M/s Renuka Polysacks Pvt Ltd, located at Demotand, District Hazaribagh. (ii) It is further alleged that the company was promoted by Sri Vivek Pratap Singh, Uday Pratap Singh, and Smt. Renuka Singh and its banking relationship with State Bank of India started at Commercial Branch, Ranchi (SME Branch, Ranchi). Subsequently, at the request of the borrower, the account was transferred to SME Branch, Bokaro. As such the present branch SME Branch has filed the said complaint. (iii) It is further alleged that the loan was sanctioned to the above named unit on 20.08.2005 but subsequently, declared N.P.A on 28.11.2011 and since there was no recovery in the loan account to the tune of Rs. 7.99 crores plus accrued interest calculated till July, 2013 and as such the matter was transferred to Stressed Assets Management Branch, Patna for hard recovery measures. (iv) It is further alleged that the Renuka Plysacks Pvt. Ltdpresent outstanding Rs. 7.99 crores. Notice u/s 13(2) SARFAESI Act, 2002 was issued on 27.12.2011 and possession notice u/s 13(4) was issued on 09.08.2012 and the same was challenged by the Company before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi in S.A. NO. 94 of 2012. (v) It is further alleged that due to intervention of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi in th above case recovery was not proceeded but in the meantime, N.P.A. Resolution Agent M/s Vision had taken possession of the land and properties of the Company which were mortgaged to the State Bank of India, M/s Vision advised vide its letter NO. VFBS/38/201213 dated 07.03.2013 that few propertied of M/s Reunka Polysacks Pvt Ltd, located near Dental College, Demotand, District Hazaribagh, mortgaged vive Sale Deed No. 4221 dated 07.05.2009 was found to be fake property. On such reporting by the agency M/s Vision, the matter was referred to by SAMB, Patna to local Head office, SBI, Patna for investigation. The DGM (Vigilance) ordered an investigation into the matter and they submitted their report on the mortgaged properties for M/s Renuka Polysacks Pvt. Ltd, as under; M/s Renuka Polysacks Pvt. Ltd: The property of this unit was mortgaged to the Bank by deposit of Sale Deed No. 4221 dated 07.05.2009 to the Bank which represent fake property as per legal opinion dated 05.10.2013 by advocate Sri Rajendra Kumar Chopra and according to his opinion the mortgagor Sri Vivek Pratap Singh neither has possession nor ownership. The valuation report of the above mentioned property at the time of original sanction was given by Sri Dinesh Chand of 433 A.P. Colony, Gay, the legal opinion for the same was given by Sri Pandey Ratneshwari Prasad of 146, A P. Colony, Gaya & Sri Tarkershwar Rana. (vi) It is further alleged that the Investigating Officer of the Bank has pointed out certain doubts on the integrity of the above Panel Advocates those who have given their opinion and also on the Govt. approved Valuer who submitted the valuation report. (vii) It is further alleged that it is apparent from the report that the property as mortgaged to the Bank against such public debt is fake and based on forged documents and as such big forgery has been committed by the Company and its promoters and a total amount of Rs. 7.99 crores plus interest has been misappropriated. (viii) It is further alleged that It would be apparent that Renuka Polysacks Pvt. Ltd which is represented by its Director Vivek Pratap Singh, Sri Uday Pratap Singh and Smt. Renuka Singh has committed forgery to the Bank and as such they are liable to be prosecuted under the law. On the basis. On the basis of these allegations the instant case has been instituted.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that that the petitioner is innocent and he has committed no offence. The petitioner is not named in F.I.R and his name appeared in the case during course of investigation only because of the fact that the petitioner was posted as the then Chief Manager, SME Branch, City Centre. Further, it has been submitted. That is noteworthy that the credit Limits for Rs. 5.10 Cr. During the tenure of Asst. Genl. Manager Sri M.P. Barnwal, the then Branch Manager, (Accused) enhanced twice in stages up to Rs. 6.90 Cr. Ist Stage), followed by enhancement in working capital by Rs. 1.15 Cr. However, the overall exposure came down to Rs. 5.50 Cr, by repayment in Term Loan during the period. It is further submitted that entire evidence relating to the present case does not disclose the role of the then Chief Manager (petitioner). It is relevant to mention herein that a commercial. Branch functioning on RMME based model has well defined and structured role of every individuals which clearly shows that the petitioner is nowhere responsible for the alleged acts. It is also relevant to mention here in that the petitioner had no role to play in the process of documents or sanctioning of cash credit limit.
(3.) It has been submitted that there was no role of the present petitioner in the lapse or omission in the fraud perpetrated by the loanee on the basis of defined role of various functionaries of SBI Commercial Branch (now called SME Branch) which is an RMME model based branch. It is also relevant to mention herein that the petitioner has taken any illegal gratification in course of discharging his duties.;