The High Court of Jharkhand rejected the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail. The court held that the serious allegations of defalcating bank funds via criminal conspiracy and the necessity for custodial interrogation made it an unfit case to grant privilege against arrest.
Prayer for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B. A. No. 24 of 2021
Pradeep Kumar Samal … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. R.C.P. Sah ,Adv. For the State : Mr. SurajVerma ,Spl. P.P. 03 / 08.07.2021 Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.
Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Seraikella P.S. Case No. 120 of 2020 registered under Sections 419, 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471, 472, 120Band Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being the then Branch Manager, Jharkhand State Co-operative Bank, Seraikella in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons violated the banking norms and sanctioned and disbursed loan of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- to the co-accused-Vijay Kumar Singh and three bills of the company of the said co-accused person, M/s. SKM Infra Venture Private Limited were illegally discounted/purchased by the petitioner on behalf of the bank and the same amount was not returned to the bank . It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is then submitted that banking rule permits sanctioning / granting of loan or advance against purchasing / discounting of bills. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the petitioner only forwarded the application of the loanee for advance against the bill purchase to the headquarter in accordance with law and the General Manager-cum-CEO of the Jharkhand State Co-operative Bank Ltd., Ranchi ordered for sanctioning and disbursing the loan amount and in this respect, learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of the court to annexure 6, which is inter office memo of the General Manager, Jharkhand State Co-operative Bank Ltd., Ranchi to the Branch Manager, Seraikella Branch wherein the General Manager has
advised the petitioner that the security furnished by loanee being seven nos. of Tata Hywa and machinery must be hypothecated with the bank, in the office of the RTO and under no circumstance, the collateral security should be less than 65% of the bill discounted amount and the validity of the discounted bill of Rs. 2.55 crores will be for 90 days, the adjustment of the said amount be intimated to the headquarter. It was further mentioned therein by the said General Manager-CEO that the KYC of the current account No. 100176 be made up to date. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in compliance of the said order of the General Manager-cum-CEO of the Jharkhand State Co-operative Bank Ltd., Ranchi, the petitioner disbursed the loan of Rs. 2.50 cores by transferring the same to the bank account of the co-accused Vijay Kumar Singh on 11.03.2019 and informed the General Managercum-CEO of the Jharkhand State Co-operative Bank Ltd., on the same date. It is also submitted that the petitioner also obtained the collateral security and also mentioned the condition that the bill discount of Rs. 2.50 crores for 90 days only as per the order of the authority. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that contrary to the procedure of the bank General Manager-cumCEO of the Jharkhand State Co-operative Bank Ltd., Ranchi sanctioned the loan amount of Rs. 2.50 cores to be paid by the coaccused. It is submitted that the petitioner intimated to the head office about the failure of the co-accused Vijay Kumar Singh to liquidate the outstanding amount by letter no. dt. 12.06.2019. It is then submitted that the petitioner requested District co-operative Officer cum Certificate Officer, Seraikella on 15.06.2020 to institute a Certificate Case against the co-accused Vijay Kumar Singh and the petitioner has submitted his reply under Section 41 (A) CrPC, hence it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Learned Spl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that the petitioner in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused person, has squarely responsible for fraudulent withdrawal Rs. 2.50 crores from Jharkhand State Co-operative Bank, Seraikella . It is also submitted by learned Spl. PP that the petitioner was very much aware that the
General Manager-cum-CEO of the Jharkhand State Co-operative Bank Ltd., Ranchi was not having power to sanction loan of Rs. 2.50 crores but still without protesting the illegal acts of the coaccused, he in criminal conspiracy was instrumental in disbursing the said amount and in order to save his skin has written letter and even approached the certificate officer one year after the validity of 90 days of the said bills purchased/ discounted. It is further submitted that the General Manager-cum-CEO of the Jharkhand State Co-operative Bank Ltd., Ranchi in ABA No. 1884 of 2021 contended that because of this petitioner not complying the conditions of the sanction of loan in not obtaining the adequate collateral security and hypothecation properly the co-accused succeeded in defrauding the bank, though vide order dated 06.07.2021, the said anticipatory bail application of the said coaccused has already been rejected. It is next submitted that the bail application of the co-accused loanee Vijay Kumar Singh has already been rejected vide order dated 13.01.2021 passed in BA No. 10893 of 2020. It is further submitted that the petitioner has also not secured the loan with hypothecation and collateral security as advised by the General Manager-cum-CEO of the Jharkhand State Co-operative Bank Ltd., Ranchi therefore the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case for recovery of the defalcated amount and other relevant materials connected with this case, hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of defalcating huge amount of money of the bank in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons as well as the requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above named petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail of the above named petitioner is rejected.
( ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
Smita/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, accused of defalcating bank funds via criminal conspiracy, is entitled to anticipatory bail.
Whether custodial interrogation is required to recover the defalcated amount and ascertain relevant facts.
Whether the serious nature of the allegation warrants denial of anticipatory bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Pradeep Kumar Samal
The State of Jharkhand
Anil Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
