Jharkhand High Court
Murari Prasad Baranwal @ Murari Prasad ... vs Union Of India Through Central Bureau Of ... on 30 November, 2021
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No.6894 of 2019
------
Murari Prasad Baranwal @ Murari Prasad Barnwal .... .... .... Petitioner Versus Union of India through Central Bureau of Investigation .... .... ....Opposite Party
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajiv N. Prasad, Advocate
: Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Adv.
For the C.B.I. : Mr. B.K. Prasad, Adv.
------
Order No.13 Dated- 30.11.2021
Heard the parties.
Apprehending his arrest in connection with RC Case No. 09(S)/2014 (EOWR) instituted under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 12 and 13(2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner while posted as AGM, SBI, CB (Commercial Branch), Ranchi fraudulently forwarded the loan proposal of the co-accused person and the loan was sanctioned basing upon the fraudulent act of the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner was transferred from SBI, CB, Ranchi to SBI, CB, Bokaro and he played a pivotal role in transferring the said loan account of the said co-accused borrower from SBI, CB, Ranchi to SBI, CB, Bokaro. It is further alleged that the petitioner wrote a letter in his handwriting on behalf of the co-accused-Vivek Pratap Singh for transfer of loan accounts form SBI, CB, Ranchi to SBI, CB, Bokaro. It is next submitted that the petitioner was instrumental in preparation of favourable due diligence report, on the very basis of which loan account was transferred from Ranchi to Bokaro. It is also alleged that the petitioner also mentioned false facts in the due diligence report in respect of the loan which was given with the active involvement of the petitioner to the co-accused person of several crores that motorable approach road to the proposed site was prepared by the borrower, though the said fact was not true even to the knowledge to the petitioner. Further the petitioner did not mention the name of Smt. Leela Kumari, Smt. Sheela Kumari and Smt. Pramila Kumari as the guarantors in the sanction letter issued to the borrower, whereas their names were mentioned in the sanctioned proposal of CPC, SBI, LHO, Patna as limited guarantors to the extent of the value of the properties in their name offered as collaterals. It is further alleged that the petitioner in conspiracy with the co-accused Vivek Pratap Singh and others accepted inflated valuation report submitted by Dinesh Chand in violation of the guidelines and rules of the Bank by not cross-checking the same by the independent enquiries. It is further alleged that the petitioner accepted the guarantee of Shri Uday Pratap Singh on the basis unregistered General Power of Attorney, which was not valid and he did not conduct fresh pre-sanction survey when factory land was changed; though as per the bank norms, the petitioner being officer of the bank was duty bound to examine the suitability of the site selected with reference to the surrounding topographical features, availability of powers, nearness of railhead etc. It is also alleged that the petitioner violated the rule by getting prepared favourable 'Due Diligence Report' and forwarding it to the Dy.GM, SBI, Zonal Office, Ranchi. It is next alleged that the petitioner did not collect the invoices as well as did not ensure the end use of the fund, disbursed during his period and he did not sign the valuation report in respect of land mentioned in Sale Deed No.9286 dated 09.06.2006 on which the factory of M/s Renuka Industries Pvt. Ltd. was to be constructed. It is also alleged that the petitioner accepted illegal gratification from Vivek Pratap Singh in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused person by abusing his official position as public servant obtained illegal gratification of Rs.23 lakhs and defrauded bank of several crores of rupees.
It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that the petitioner has instructed the Medium Enterprises Relationship Manager to conduct the due diligence exercise as desired/ordered by controlling office though the petitioner has not any document to support his claim that he did so on the instruction of the Controlling Office. It is further submitted that there was 20 feet wide approach road to the factory site. It is also submitted that non-mentioning the names of the three lady guarantors in the sanction letter, is because of the mistake committed by the CPC Central Processing Cell, LHO, Patna, hence the petitioner could not held responsible for that and he did not make two enhancements of the loan in April, 2008 and June, 2009. It is then submitted that the guarantees of the said three ladies were not even stipulated by the CPC officials although, the properties of ladies were continued as collateral security. It is also submitted that the guarantee of the Shri Uday Pratap Singh was not accepted on the basis of power of attorney but he actually visited the branch and signed the guarantee document himself as one of the guarantors of the loan. It is then submitted that the petitioner has retired on 31.07.2016 having served the Bank for about 37 years and his entire tenure has been one of absolute honesty and integrity. It is submitted that only about 5 percent of the loan was disbursed up to the tenure of the petitioner at CB, Bokaro i.e., 30.07.2007 and after transfer and relieving of the petitioner; the entire loan of Rs.8.15 crores were disbursed and the loan was also sanctioned afresh and enhanced in 2008 and 2009 to Rs.16.20 crores, the loan became NPA in November, 2011. It is then submitted that the petitioner is a reputed and senior man who fully co-operated during investigation of the case and C.B.I. did not feel it necessary to arrest him during the investigation of the case. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender and he is also involved in RC Case No.08(S) of 2014 (EOWR) and being an influential person, there is every possibility of his tampering with the evidence and also of absconding with huge amount of ill- gotten money, if released on provisional bail and the petitioner is having huge amount of money collected illegally by means of illegal gratification. It is next submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case for recovery of the misappropriated huge amount and also to find out the specific details of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Considering the serious nature of the allegation against the petitioner and 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 petitioner be given privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the above named petitioner is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Pappu/