Patna High Court - Orders
Gautam Gambhir vs The State Of Bihar on 25 February, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86277 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-572 Year-2025 Thana- SHASTRINAGAR District- Patna
======================================================
Ritesh Kumar Verma S/o Suresh Kumar Verma Resident of Tootwari Gali,
neq Godown, P.S.- Gaya, District- Gaya, at present Branch Manager, Bank of
Baroda, Saguna More, Distt- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Deputy Manager, Bank of Baroda Bank of Baroda, Regional Office,
First Floor, Hotel Satkar, Dak Banglow Chauraha, Fraser Rd., Patna-800001
(India)
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 89654 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-572 Year-2025 Thana- SHASTRINAGAR District- Patna
======================================================
Ankush Kumar S/o Sri Ashutosh Kumar Sinha Resident of Mohalla - K 197,
Hanuman Nagar, P.S - Patrakar Nagar, Kankarbag, District - Patna Then
Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Barh Branch, Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Nalin Kumar, Deputy General Manager and Regional Chief Bank of Baroda,
Regional Office, 1st Floor Hotel Satkar Campus, Dak Bungalow Road,
Chauraha, Frazer Road, Patna, Pin - 800001
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 90373 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-572 Year-2025 Thana- SHASTRINAGAR District- Patna
======================================================
Gautam Gambhir Son of Dipak Singh Resident of village- Chakiya, P.s-
Paliganj, District- Patna, Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Bank of Baroda, Through Regional Manager Bank of Baroda, Regional
Office, 1st floor, Hotel Satkar Complex, Dakbungalow Square, Fraser Road,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86277 of 2025(3) dt.25-02-2026
2/6
Dist- Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 86277 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Sanjeev Shankar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Dilip Kumar No. 1, APP
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 89654 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arvind Prasad Singh, Advocate
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Sanjeev Shankar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, APP
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 90373 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prabhakar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Mayank Mohan, Advocate
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Sanjeev Shankar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ram Naresh Ray, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 25-02-2026Heard the parties.
The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 464, 467, 468, 471, 420, 409/120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.
That the prosecution story as per the F.I.R of one Nalin Kumar, Deputy General Manager and Regional Head of Bank of Baroda is that a loan of Rs. 49,70,000/- was sanctioned in favour of co-accused Nootan Kumari by the Bank of Baroda, A.G. Colony Branch, Patna. The said co- accused represented herself to be a salaried employee, claiming to have been working as permanent Clerk in the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86277 of 2025(3) dt.25-02-2026 3/6 Anatomy Department of PMCH since 10.07.2004. She furnished her PAN Card and Aadhaar Card for verification and also submitted a salary/savings account statement of Punjab National Bank. The account was canvassed by petitioner/Gautam Gambhir, a Direct Selling Agent (DSA). A pre-approval inspection of her residence at A.G. Colony and place of employment at PMCH was conducted, which initially indicated that she was a permanent employee of PMCH. However, on 02.02.2024, the sanctioning Branch informed the Regional Office of suspected fraudulent activity involving tampered documents submitted for the loan. Suspicion was further strengthened when discrepancies were detected during inspections conducted by the petitioner Gautam Gambhir(DSA) in other cases. It was subsequently found that co-accused Nootan Kumari has not constructed any house against the sanctioned loan and has misappropriated the bank's fund and that the salary slip, account statements, and employer details furnished by her were found fraudulent. Hence the FIR.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner/Ritesh Kumar Verma that petitioner is innocent Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86277 of 2025(3) dt.25-02-2026 4/6 and he has falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioner is working as a Manager in Bank of Baroda at Saguna More Branch, Patna. The aforesaid loan of Co- accused Nootan Kumari was applied before the then Branch Manager co-accused Ankush Kumar and said Ankush Kumar has verified the present and permanent address, employment details of co-accused Nootan Kumari through personal visit and took photographs of proposed property and place of her employment. The empanelled Advocate has also reported the said property and the title deeds to be genuine. The petitioner has nothing to do with the whole occurrence and he was dragged in this case only because he was Manager at the time of sanctioning of loan to the co- accused Nootan Kumari.
It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner/Ankush Kumar that the petitioner in the capacity of Branch Manager has forwarded the loan application parked by the Direct Selling Agent(DSA) to MSM department for verification and sanction of loan. The petitioner is not the sanctioning authority of loan nor the petitioner has sanctioned the loan to co-accused Nootan Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86277 of 2025(3) dt.25-02-2026 5/6 Kumari. He further submits that upon detecting fraudulent activity in the said housing loan of co-accused Nootan Kumari, the petitioner himself reported the matter to his senior officers through e-mail on 02.02.2024 which caused great annoyance to Nutan Kumari and her associates who, out of revenge, has named the petitioner.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner/Gautam Gambhir that petitioner is only a Direct Selling Agent and he has been empanelled as DSA on 21.01.2022 and as per empanelment letter, his role as DSA is limited to the source of proposal only and he as DSA has no authority to incur any liability or make any commitment. As per F.I.R, the informant himself has admitted that the documents of some of the applicants presented by this petitioner were rejected/cancelled due to error or inappropriate, due to which loan was not approved, then how was the loan of co-accused Nootan Kumari was sanctioned without verification and scrutiny is cause of concern.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Bank of Baroda and learned A.P.P appearing on behalf of the State Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86277 of 2025(3) dt.25-02-2026 6/6 have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners and submitted that in conspiracy with each other the entire emblazonment of public money has been made. The petitioners being Managers and the sanctioning authority and petitioner/Gautam Gambhir on whose recommendation, loan was sanctioned in connivance with each other and with co-accused Nootan Kumari all have embazelled the public money. In paragraph Nos. 62 and 66 of the case diary, the Investigating Officer has found materials indicating the petitioners' involvements in fraudulent sanctioning the loan to co-accused Nootan Kumari. Investigation is still going on.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not persuaded to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail.
The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners stands rejected.
(S. B. Pd. Singh, J) Shageer/-
U T