Patna High Court - Orders
Dharmendra Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 23 April, 2026
Author: Purnendu Singh
Bench: Purnendu Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35632 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-252 Year-2024 Thana- DURAULI District- Siwan
======================================================
Dharmendra Kumar Singh S/o Late Ramashankar Singh @ Late
Ramashanker Singh Resident of Village- Lohgajar, P.S.- Asaw, Distt.- Siwan
Presently residing at Vill.- Mairwa Dham, P.S.- Mairwa, Distt.- Siwan
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar
2. The Regional Manager, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, Regional Office Siwan
Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Binod Singh, Advocate
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rajendra Nath Jha, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
7 23-04-2026Heard Mr. Ram Binod Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner; Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 and Mr. Rajendra Nath Jha, learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Darauli P.S. Case No. 252 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 409 and 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Darauli P.S. Case No. 252 of 2024 was instituted on 14.08.2024 on the basis of a typed written report submitted by Satyam Shivam, Branch Manager, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, Kanhauli Branch-2, Siwan.
It is alleged that pursuant to authorization granted by the bank Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35632 of 2025(7) dt.23-04-2026 2/28 management vide Letter No. RO/Siwa/OPR/2024-25/139 dated 13.08.2024, the informant lodged the FIR against the petitioner, namely Dharmendra Kumar Singh, and co-accused Dilip Kumar alleging embezzlement of bank funds amounting to Rs.
47,64,316/- during the period 2013-2014 while they were posted as Office Assistant and Branch Manager respectively at Kanhauli Branch-2. It is further alleged that when certain customers, namely Satyaveer Yadav and Usha Kumari, approached the bank for withdrawal of their deposited money, an inquiry revealed that the accused persons had allegedly withdrawn the customers' deposits from various accounts on the basis of forged and fake certificates. On the basis of the said allegations, the FIR was registered under Sections 409 and 420/34 of the IPC against the petitioner and the co-accused persons.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case on the basis of vague and omnibus allegations.
Petitions has taken defence that at the relevant time, he was posted as an Office Assistant in Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, Kanhauli Branch-2, and his role was merely that of a "Maker" in the banking process, whereas, the transactions were required to Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35632 of 2025(7) dt.23-04-2026 3/28 be verified and approved by higher officials before any payment could be made to the customers. He further submitted that the petitioner was not the sole authority responsible for disbursement of money and no specific overt act has been attributed to him in the FIR. Learned counsel further submitted that the alleged occurrence pertains to the years 2013-2014, whereas, the FIR was instituted on 14.08.2024 after an unexplained delay of about ten years. During the entire period, regular internal audits of the bank were conducted and no irregularity or embezzlement was ever detected against the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel further submitted that the bank has already initiated a departmental proceeding against the petitioner and issued a show cause notice, to which the petitioner duly responded seeking details regarding the "makers"
and "checkers" involved in the alleged transactions, but no such information was supplied by the bank authorities. Learned counsel also referred to Clause 07(xii) of the Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank Accountability Policy, 2014, which provides that no accountability shall be fixed for any lapse not pointed out in two successive audit reports or after four years from the date of occurrence of the alleged lapse. It has been contended that the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35632 of 2025(7) dt.23-04-2026 4/28 present criminal prosecution, initiated after a lapse of about ten years, is contrary to the 2014 policy. He lastly submitted that the petitioner is a permanent employee, has deep roots in society, is not likely to abscond, and is ready to cooperate with the investigation, as well as, abide by any condition imposed by the Court, and therefore he deserves the privilege of anticipatory bail.
6. Based on the above argument and the defence taken in bail application on behalf of the petitioner, which has been controverted on behalf of the Bihar Gramin Bank, which I find appropriate to reproduce the averments made in the counter affidavit, inter alia is as under:
"I, Satyan Shivam, aged about 35 years, Son of Shri Raj Shivam, R/o House No. 1350, Ward No. 23, Near Nehru Yuva Kendra, Belbanwa, Motihari, East Champaran
- 845401 do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows:-
1. That at present I am posted as Branch Manager, BO:- Kanhauli 2, Bihar Gramin Bank and as such am well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. That I have gone through the contents of the anticipatory bail application which I have fully understood.
3. That I have been duly authorized to swear the present counter affidavit on behalf of the Bank.
4. The application has been filed for anticipatory bail in Darauli P.S Case No. 252 of 2024 registered under Section 409, 420/34 of IPC on typed complaine filed by Shri Satyam Shivam, Branch Manager Brand Office Kanauli 2, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank for fraud committed by the petitioner and co-accused Shri Dilip Kumar the then Branch Manager to the tune of amount Rs. 47,64,316/-.
5. That beside parawise reply, the brief modul operandi of the fraud is felt necessary to place before the Hon'ble Court for justice.
6. A request was received from customer Shri. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35632 of 2025(7) dt.23-04-2026 5/28 Satyaveer Yadav having Saving A/c No.
-1006631010000792 on 16.10.2023 regarding closer of his FD A/C opened under MMDC (Money Multiplier Deposit Certificate) 1006631230002777 and credit of the closer proceed in his saving account. Branch Manager, Kanhauli vide letter BO/K-2/2023-24/223 dated 17.10.2023 reported to Regional Office that the MMDC (Account no-
1006631230002777) is not opened in CBS but a forged MMDC was issued to the customer. MMDC submitted by the customer bears the signature of the then Branch Manager of Shapur Nautan Branch who is co-accused in present case along with the Branch seal. An another complaint was received from customer Shri. Satyaveer Yadav Saving A/c-1006631010000792 by Branch, regarding unauthorized debit of Rs. 5,00,000/- from his saving account. Branch Manager, Kanhauli vide letter no. 80/K- 2/2023-24/229 dated 16.11.2023 reported the same to Regional Office, Siwan. On dated 17.10.2023, another request from Smt. Usha Kumari was received for payment of MMDC A/c no-1006631230000478. On receipt of aforesaid complaints an internal enquiry was conducted wherein it came to light that "Fake Fixed deposit certificate was issued to customers. MMDC accounts were neither opened in CBS nor the amount of customers deposited in the MMDC account, in one of the instance the saving account of the customer was debited severally without mandate of customer and amount was transferred to the account of a different customers." (emphasis supplied) Amount of Rs. 50000 (Fifty thousand only), Rs. 50000 (Fifty thousand only), Rs. 300000 (Three lakh only) and Rs. 200000 (Two lakh only, were debited from the customer's saving account on different dates by forging the signature of the customer and it was also not mentioned on the passbook (old manual passbook).
The customer had deposited Rs. 15,00,000 in his saving account on 14.02.2014 but the said amount was not credited in his saving account, however, as per the old passbook (Manual passbook) entry of Rs. 15,00,000 shown in the passbook. Voucher is not available for the transaction and the transaction is not mentioned in the cash register of the branch.
Fake FD certificate of Rs. 21,00,000/- was issued to customer. A debit entry of Rs. 21,00,000/- (Twenty one lakh) is shown in the old passbook (Manual passbook). As per the customer, when FD matured and customer contacted the petitioner for renewal, who was transferred to Sahpur nautan branch by that time the petitioner received the original certificate and issued another forged FD certificate no. 027182 pertaining to Sahpur Nautan branch as the serial no of security item is in record of Sahpur nautan branch, with account no. 1006631230002777 of face value Rs. 34,02,499/- (Thirty four lakh two thousand Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35632 of 2025(7) dt.23-04-2026 6/28 four hundred ninety nine) having maturity value Rs. 37,64,655/- and due on 08/09/2021. Voucher and FD account opening form was not found in the branch.
When the due date approached, the petitioner (the then BM, Sahpur Nautan) personally contacted the customer and renewed the FD with a new date 23/03/2023 having maturity value of Rs. 40,64,310/- (Forty lakh sixty four thousand three hundred and ten). When customer Shri. Satyaveer Yadav approached the petitioner for premature closure of FD in November 2022 so that he could pay for his sons' admission fee, the petitioner convinced him not to liquidate the FD and issued a fake BANK GUARANTEE consisting letter no. kanhauli 2/2022-23/34 dated 28/11/2022. whereas in 2022 the petitioner was transferred from Kanhauli Branch and was working as BM in Sisai Bazar, Gopalganj. Fraudulent transfer transaction of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the saving account 100663101000792 of Shri. Satyaveer yadav and Smt. Kanchan Devi.
The amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- was transferred from the saving account of Shri. Satyaveer Yadav without his consent to Smt. Pramila Devi's Accounton 15.02.2014. Voucher of this transaction is also not available in the branch.
Customer (Shri. Satyaveer Yadav) has submitted a complaint regarding this unauthorized transaction from his account. Fraudulent transaction of Rs. 100000 for creation of fake FD of Usha Devi MMDC having certificate no. 337599 was given to Usha kumari with account no 1006631230000478. The certificate belongs to Kanhauli 2 branch and account no. mentioned on certificate is fake no such account exists in CBS. Fake FD certificate is issued. FD account also does not exist in the Finacle. Bank's security item (FD certificate) was misused to defraud customer as FD account was not opened and fake FD certificate was issued to the customer.
The account numbers mentioned in both FD certificates are fake. KYC records of Smt. Usha Kumari is not available in Branch.
7. That the custodian of the FD certificates no. 3375501 to 337600 and other security forms were in joint custody of then B.M Shri Dilip Kumar and the petitioner.
8. That the petitioner was habitual of mischievous act which is clear from that when he was posted at Sahpur Nautan Branch from 07.10.2014 to 17.08.2021 as Branch Manager at Branch Office Shahpur Nautan and continued the same fraudulent modus operandi of issuing fake MMDC certificate to the customer by grabbing their hard eared money while he was posted at Branch Office Sisai from 17.08.2021 till his suspension.
9. The Branch Manager, B.O Sahpur Nautan received complain from two customers who had given application to open FD account in the branch but Fake FD Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35632 of 2025(7) dt.23-04-2026 7/28 certificates were issued to the customers by the then branch manager Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Singh i.e. the petitioner. Enquiry was conducted and on recommendation of Regional Office, Siwan fraud of Rs.11,00,000/-(Eleven lakhs only) was declared on 18.11.2023 by the competent committee at Head Office.
10. That After the declaration of the aforesaid fraud committed by the petitioner a flood of complaints were received at BO Sahpur Nautan with same modus operandi and thus again an internal investigation was set up wherein additional fraud amount of Rs. 96,96,175.77/- has been quantified till date.
In the aforesaid table reveals the petitioner's user ID DK22194 was used in the fraudulent transaction in CBS for making entry to the amount of Rs. 45,56,000/- posted for amount Rs. 73,36,000/- and verified for amount Rs. 27,80,000/-. (emphasis supplied) As above, all transactions were processed to defraud the customers by issuing fake FD certificates for his personal gain by violating banking norms.
The same modus operandi was adopted in the fraud amount of Rs. 34,35,274/- while the petitioner was posted at B.O Sasai for which separate FIR has been lodged bearing Bhore P.S Case No. 175/2023.
That after observing the involvement of the petitioner in such huge amount of embezzlement in various branch and fraud committed for at a very sophisticated manner that was not easy to detect as the amount involved in fraud was only to came in light when the customers approached the branches with their fake MMDC for payment and thus the petitioner was successful in putting curtain over his misdeed for such a long time. The Court of the XI, Addl. Session Judge, District Gopalganj (Bihar) rejected the Bail application of the petitioner in ABP No. 1159 of 2023 in Bhore P.S Case No. 175/2023 registered u/s 420,406, 467, 468, 471 of IPC for fraud committed by the petitioner while his posting at B.O Sasai and the court of the 1, Add. Session Judge-cum-spl judge rejected the Bail application of the petitioner in Nautan P.S Case No. 225/2023 u/s 406, 409, 467,468/34 of IPC for fraud committed while his posting at Sahpur Nautan and the court of Principal Session Judge, Siwan rejected the anticipatory bail in Darauti P.S Case No. 252/2024 registed under section 409 & 420 of IPC for fraud committed at Kandauli 2 Branch.
11. That the petitioner has not approached that Hon'ble Court with clean hand has suppressed the complete backdrop of the matter and only disclosed the embezzlement of B.O Kandauli 2, which is not accepted by a bank employee wherein the business of the Bank is of trust and the petitioner has breached the trust of the customers which has caused reputational as well as financial loss to the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35632 of 2025(7) dt.23-04-2026 8/28 Bank.
Para Wise Reply:
12. That the content of para 1 of the Petition under reply is formal in nature but wrong relief prayer and highly objectionable and hence denied
13. That the content of para 2 of the Petition under reply is formal in nature.
14. That the content of para 3 of the Petition under reply is formal in nature. However, an anticipatory bail petition was moved in Nautan P.S. case no. 225 of 2023 vide Cr. Misc. no. 46681 of 2024 which was already dismissed by this Hon'ble Court on 02-12-2024 much prior to the filing of the present petition and petitioner did not disclose this fact.
15. That the content of para 4 of the Petition under reply is matter of fact.
16. That the content of para 5 of the Petition under reply is wrong and highly objectionable and hence denied.
17. That the content of para 6 of the Petition under reply is wrong and highly objectionable and hence denied.
18. That the content of para 7 of the Petition under reply is wrong and highly objectionable and hence denied but part of the para is matter of record. It is submitted that as per Banking norms any FDR presented by self or bearer or any authorized person for encashment of the same then a bank official (Maker) verify the genuineness of the FDR and make a queue then the senior bank official (Checker) check the genuineness and release/order for payment. However, in the present case both the maker and checker are accused.
19. That the content of para 8 of the Petition under reply is matter of record.
20. That the statement made in the para 9 of the bail petition is irrelevant and misleading. It is stated that the modus operandi has been discussed herein above. Further, substantial amount was embezzled by the petitioner without the amount taken into account under Bank's book/CBS system where the question of maker and checker does not arise. It is further pertinent to mention here that no receiving or mode of delivery of letter dated 22.09.2024 was furnished by the petitioner upon which the desire information to petitioner could be provided however the complete fraudulent transaction trails with transaction ID of maker and checker have been furnished in the foregoing paragraph.
21. That the statement made in para 10 & 11 of the bail application is admitted to the extent born out of the record and correctness of the rest are hereby denied. As far as internal audit is concerned it is to be submitted that regular internal audit is not a special investigation and is Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35632 of 2025(7) dt.23-04-2026 9/28 carried out ranging from three to ten days in branch in which it might be possible that such irregularity may not come in the knowledge of the auditors.
22. That the statement made in para 12 of the bail application it is stated that the same is misleading and the same account staff accountability annexed at Annexure P4 of the bail petition wherein under clause 7 (XII) itself that this time limit will not apply to the cases of (i) Fraud
(ii) Other Criminal Offenses (iii) Cases where malafide are inferable. It is further pertinent to mention here that the objective of the staff accountability policy is to protect the bonafide actions/decisions taken by the staff in the interest of the Bank and not to protect the mischievous done by the persons like the petitioner who being a custodian of public money committed criminal breach of trust for his personal gain and embezzled a huge amount of hard earned public money to the tune of Rs. 1,89,95,765.77/-. Further, it is relevant to mention here that in an another similar matter pertaining to Satyam Sinha Vs. The State of Bihar bearing Cr. Misc. No. 67533 of 2023 the co-ordinate bench of this Hon'ble High Court, Patna while rejecting the bail application of the petitioner vide Order dated 20.08.2025 has observed under para 24, 25 & 26 as follows:-
"24. The offence of the present kind falls within the category of socio economic offences and has been termed as white collar crimes which shakes public trust in the financial institutions as rightly been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat verus Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal (1987) 2 SCC 364 in which the Supreme Court has observed that these offences are committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. It is a well settled principle of law that anticipatory bail is not to be granted . as a matter of rule; it is an extraordinary remedy to be resorted to only when the court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exit. The parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in serious offences must be strictly satisfied. Such relief can be granted only where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has been falsely implicated.
25. In cases involving public money and financial institutions like in the present case of Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank where public confidence is paramount in such matters larger societal interest is at stake. There is clear money trail in the present case as revealed in the enquiry report as well as Quick Study report of NABARD which goes on to suggest that the petitioner not only orchestrated and played an active role in this scam but also directly benefited from it. The money trail, tracing substantial funds to the petitioner's own accounts and to those of his immediate family members suggests that he was the sole beneficiary of the alleged scam. Economic offences Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35632 of 2025(7) dt.23-04-2026 10/28 have serious repercussion on the development of the country as a whole eroding public confidence in the financial institutions and undermining the integrity of economic transactions. The petitioner is not entitled for parity on the basis of the order passed by Co-ordinate Bench in Cr. Misc. No. 17767 of 2024 arising out of Kharagpur P.S. Case No. 673 / 2023 on the ground that modus operandi of the scam / defalcation of Rs. 10,05,837.35/- was not brought to the notice of the Co- ordinate Bench by the Bank during the course of hearing of the case. (emphasis supplied)
26. In the case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy versus CBI reported in (2013) 7 SCC 439 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. (emphasis supplied)
23. That the content of para 13 of the Petition under reply is wrong and highly objectionable and hence denied. It is submitted that petitioner is habitual offender and there are several cases lodged against him for the similar type of offence/fraud. It is every chance that the petitioner may abscond or temper the witnesses in case he may be granted anticipatory bail. It is further submitted that after consideration of the all consequences, this Hon'ble Court has already rejected the Anticipatory Bail Petition of the petitioner herein in similar nature of cases as mentioned above.
24. That the content of para 14 of the Petition under reply is wrong and highly objectionable prayer and hence denied
25. That the content of para 15 of the Petition under reply is matter of record." (emphasis supplied)
7. The petitioner has filed rejoinder to the counter affidavit, which inter alia is reproduced hereinafter:
I, Priyanka Kumari, Female, aged about 41 years, Wife of Dharmendra Kumar Singh So Late Ramashankar Singh @ Late Ramashanker Singh R/o village - Lohgajar, Police Station - Asaw, District - Siwan, Presently Residing at 2 village - Mairwa Dham, Police Station - Mairwa, District -Siwan, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows:
1. That I am the wife of the petitioner and as Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35632 of 2025(7) dt.23-04-2026 11/28 such I am well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. That the contents of the Counter Affidavit under reply have been read over and explained to me in Hindi and I have understood the same.
3. That the petitioner is filing a consolidated rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed by the Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank.
4. That in the counter affidavit it has been shown that Sri Satyaveer Yadav has submitted request for closure of his FD Account opened under Money Multiplier Deposit Certificate (MMDC) No. 1006631230002777. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the said MMDC Account is not opened in CBS but is a forged MMDC Account issued to Satyaveer Yadav. However, it has been learned by the petitioner that the Bank has paid Rs. 42.64 Lakhs on 06.01.2025 in the savings account no.
1006631010000792 of Satyaveer Yadav, being the maturity value of MMDC FD Account, which is being claimed by the bank to be a forged one. It is highly surprising that the bank is claiming the account to be forged before this Hon'ble Court and at the same time has paid maturity amount to Satyaveer Yadav. (emphasis supplied)
5. That it is further submitted that Sri Satyaveer Yadav and Smt. Usha Kumari who are being shown as victims by the bank have not filed any case with the police or court alleging embezzlement by the petitioner.
6. That it is apparent from the contents of counter affidavit under reply that only vague allegations have been levelled against the petitioner.
7. That the petitioner was posted as Clerk at Branch Office Kanahauli 2 of Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank from June 2011 to September 2014 and as per norms the role of the Office Assistant in the Bank as a Maker and only after verification by the Higher Officials he pays the said amount to the customers. As such the petitioner is not the sole authority to pay the amounts to any customers. After transfer of the petitioner there were successive audit conducted every year by the internal auditor and at the end of the year the aforesaid internal audit was closed, However, nothing transpired which could even remotely connect the petitioner with the offence. As such no irregularity regarding the alleged embezzled amount of Rs. 47,64,316 /- has been found by the internal auditor during the audit. At the time of transfer, the petitioner has handed over all the bank properties to the successor and there is no complain that the petitioner has not given charge of any bank property. (emphasis supplied)
8. That it is humbly reiterated that Clause 07 (xit) of the Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank accountability policy 2014, says that "No accountability will be fixed for any lapse, which has not been pointed out in the two successive Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35632 of 2025(7) dt.23-04-2026 12/28 audit reports or 4 years from the date of the event(i.e. occurrence of lapse) whichever is later. (Annexure P- 4 of the Bail Petition).
9. That for the same allegations the petitioner is also facing departmental proceedings initiated vide show cause notice dated 19.08.2024 (Annexure P - 2 to the main application). The department is not fairly treating the petitioner in the departmental proceeding and the petitioner has requested for documents and information of the makers and checkers of the alleged embezzled amount of Rs.47,64,316, but till date the information has not been provided to the petitioner by the respondent bank and this is causing prejudice to the petitioner in the Criminal as well as Departmental proceedings.
10. That the petitioner is also bringing on record the order dated 04.03.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 8445 of 2024 passed in Bhore P.S. Case No. 175 of 2023 registered under sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC, in which the Hon' ble Patna High Court has been pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
11. That the anticipatory bail prayer of the petitioner in Nautan P.S. Case No. 225 of 2023 registered under section 406, 409, 420, 467, 468/34 of IPC is pending before Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Criminal) Diary No. 45482 of 2025 2025, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 13.10.2025 has been pleased to issue notice and grant ad interim relief by directing the petitioner to be released on bal and personal bond with surities."
8. The bank, thereafter, filed their supplementary counter affidavit, in which following informations have been given, which is reproduced as under:
"I, Abhishek Verma, aged about 35 years, Son of Shri Virendra Kumar R/O 2/21 MIG Barra, 7 Kanpur Nagar UP 208027 do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows:-
1. That at present I am posted as Manager (Law) Bihar Gramin Bank and as such the deponent is well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. That have been duly authorized to swear the present supplementary counter affidavit on behalf of the Bank.
3. That I have gone through the contents of the Supplementary Counter Affidavit which I have fully understood.
4. That no such supplementary affidavit has earlier been filed and moved before this Hon'ble Court regarding this matter.
5. That it is undisputed that the petitioner was Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35632 of 2025(7) dt.23-04-2026 13/28 functioning as Branch Manager of a rural banking institution entrusted with safeguarding public deposits. The allegations pertain to misappropriation of saving of ordinary customers and therefore involved breach of fiduciary trust reposed in him. Apart from the present case, the petitioner has been involved in acts constituting criminal breach of trust, which have already resulted in judicial proceedings against him, and the instant bail application arises out of the said criminal misconduct. For proper appreciation of the antecedents, conduct and credibility of the petitioner, it is necessary to place on record his continued involvement in fiduciary and official misconduct throughout his service career. The petitioner has, for a considerable period, been evading accountability for his wrongful acts and has approached this Hon'ble Court without clean hands and the petitioner is evading his misdeeds committed for a long time in different branches, wherein he was posted, which by passage of time came to light on receipt of complaints from the customers which was surprise to the Bank. A brief of fraud committed and its modus operandi has already been placed before the Hon'ble High Court in the Counter Affidavit dated 23.11.2025 filed by the Bank in the instant matter. Further, it is felt necessary to be placed on record the disciplinary action taken by the bank under the applicable Service Regulations against the petitioner by the Bank for his fiduciary act for better appreciation of Bank's plea to dismiss the instant anticipatory bail application of the petitioner.
5. That the petitioner's acts are not mere procedural lapses but constitute a systematic modus operandi adopted to siphon/divert public funds, thereby causing substantial pecuniary loss and eroding institutional credibility. Therefore, independent of the criminal proceedings, the Respondent-Bank initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.
6. That Chargesheet No. HO/DAD/16-23-24/No. 134, 134 (A), 134 (B) dated 11.09.2023 was issued for the misconduct committed by the petitioner while discharging his duties as Branch Manager, Sasai Bazar Branch under Regional Office Gopalganj.
7. That the petitioner was given 8 days' time to submit his statement of defense. The chargesheet was delivered on 07.10.2023 through Post (Ref. No. RF3835125161N) but he did not submit statement of defense up to 03.11.2023, as such intimation letter for non-submission of statement of defense has been issued to petitioner (CSO), vide later no HO/DAD/16/23-24/180 dated 03.11.2023, which was delivered on 23.11.2023 through Post (Ref.
No. EF519590285IN). On appointment of Inquiry Authority (IA) and Presenting Officer for the aforesaid chargesheet the intimation of the same was given to the petitioner which was delivered to him on 02.12.2023 through Post (Ref. No. RF414498683IN).
8. That vide letter dated 12 12.2023 the intimation of the preliminary inquiry fixed for 22.12.2023 was sent to the petitioner at his address [S/o Late Ramashankar Singh, at Lohaganjar, PO Chhitanpur, Dist Siwan, Pin-841245 as per bank records through registered post. (RF319333493IN)". But he did not participate in the departmental inquiry on 22.12.2023. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35632 of 2025(7) dt.23-04-2026 14/28
9. That the petitioner was provided with ample opportunities to defend himself in the Departmental Enquiry proceedings. He was also provided with the ample opportunities to defend the charges with the help of a defense representative. He, vide his consent letter dated 15.02.2023 appointed Mr. Pappu Kumar Paswan, Branch Manager, Barauli Branch, RO Gopalganj as his Defense representative (DR). Further, the petitioner has also consented in the letter that departmental inquiry shall be conducted in his absence and in presence of his defense representative as such he did not attend departmental inquiry proceedings.
10. That the Departmental Enquiry commenced from 22.12.2023 and concluded on 09.08.2024 in nine (09) sittings. Presenting Officer presented twenty-five 25) documents marked as Management Exhibits (MEX1(a)(b) to MEX22(a)(b), MEX23(a)(b)
(c)(d), MEX24(a)(b) to MEX25(a)(b)). But, Petitioner (CSO/DR did not produce any defense exhibits/witness/es.
11. That the Presenting Officer submitted his undated written brief to the Inquiry Authority on 02.10.2024. PO written brief was forwarded to Petitioner (CSO)/DR by Inquiring Authority on 02.10.2024 itself, which was received by DR on same day. DR vide letter dated 19.10.2024 stated that he doesn't have any submissions to make regarding PO brief.
12. That Inquiry Authority submitted its finding on 25.10.2024, wherein he held the charge No. 01, 02, 03 and 04 levelled in Chargesheet No. HO/DAD/16/23-24/No. 134, 134(A), 134(B) dated 11.09.2023 against Petitioner (CSO) as proved.
13. That the findings of the Inquiry Authority was sent to Petitioner (CSO) vide letter dated HO/DAD/17/23-24/179 dated 28.10.2024 for his submission vide registered post (Tracking ID- RF439777216IN), which was delivered on 09.11.2024 and the same was also sent to email id [email protected] But, Petitioner (CSO) did not make any submission on IA findings.
14. That the Disciplinary Authority considered the Departmental Engury proceedings and the evidence produced and taken on record, concurred with the finding of the Inquiry Authority and awarded charge wise as well as consolidated penalty to the Petitioner (CSO) as under:-
Charge No. Proved/Not Imposed
Proved Punishment/Pen
alty
1 Proved Dismissal
2 Proved Dismissal
3 Proved Dismissal
4 Proved Dismissal
Finally, Disciplinary Authority awarded consolidated penalty to the petitioner vide DA Order dated 10.12.2024, which is as under:-
"Dismissal in terms of Regulation 39 (1) (b) (v) of the Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank (Officers & Employees) Service Regulations, 2010 read with the Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank Service Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35632 of 2025(7) dt.23-04-2026 15/28 (Amendment) Regulations, 2013.
Further, in terms of Regulation 48 of the Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank (Officers & Employees) Service Regulations, 2010, read with the Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank (Amendment) Regulation, 2013 Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Singh shall not be paid any more salary/ pay and allowances for the period he remained under suspension than what was already paid to him as subsistence allowances."
15. That during the ongoing proceeding, it came to light that the petitioner in connivance with other staff of the Branch, debited Saving Account No. 1006321010003949 of Mrs. Vina Sinha by Rs. 7,00,000/- on 17.10.2017. Besides in Saving Account No. 1006321030008762 of Mr. Gulzar Miya, there are three debit entries viz. Rs. 1,00,000/- on 28.02.2018, Rs. 2,00,000/- on 19.06.2019 and Rs. 1,00,000/- on 11.01.2021. The above two customers were issued fake MMDC certificate of Rs. 7,00,000/-, Rs. 1,00,000/-, Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- respectively without opening MMDC accounts in CBS. As the acts constitute misconduct for breach of Regulations 18 and 20 of the Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank (Officers & Employees) Service Regulations, 2010, attracting penalty under its Regulation 39, read with Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank (Amendment) Regulations, 2013. Therefore, a chargesheet dated 13.02.2024 Wi issued to the petitioner for his act of irregularity and in the aforesa fraudulent act a FIR bearing Nautan P.S Case No. 225/2023 dater 23.11.2023 was lodged under section 406/409/420/467/468/34 IPC.
16. That copy of chargesheet was sent to the petitioner (CSO) for his comments through registered post (Tracking ID - EF728180045IN) on 17.02.2024 on address as per Bank records. However, the same was returned undelivered on 01.03.2024 with remarks **izkIrdrkZ ifjokj lfgr fcuk irk crk;s ckgj jgrk gSA okil fd;k tkrk gSA** Subsequently, intimation of issue of the Chargesheet was published in two newspapers on 03.04.2024. But the petitioner (CSO) did not turned up to collect the copy of chargesheet and therefore as per the power conferred under service regulation, the Disciplinary Authority appointed Inquiry officer and Presenting Officer vide Order dated 08.05.2024, to inquire into the charges framed against petitioner (CSO). The domestic inquiry was set up but in all the 05 sittings of the departmental proceeding the petitioner (CSO) was absent.
17. That meanwhile an another fraud in Kanhauli 2 Branch to the tune of Rs. 47,64,316/- came in light, where the petitioner was posted. For clarity it is felt necessary to produce the entire episode in brief, which is as under:-
A request was received from customer Shri. Satyaveer Yadav having Saving A/c -1006631010000792 on 16.10.2023 regarding closure of MMDC 1006631230002777 and credit of the closure proceed in his saving account. Branch Manager, Kanhauli vide letter BOIK-212023-241223 dated 17.10.2023 reported to Regional Office that the MMDC (Account no. 1006631230002777) is not opened in CBS but a forged MMDC was issued. MMDC submitted by the customer bears the signature of the then Branch Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35632 of 2025(7) dt.23-04-2026 16/28 Manager of Shapur Nautan Branch along with the Branch seal. A complaint was received from customer Shri. Satyaveer Yadav Saving A/c-1006631010000792 by Branch, regarding unauthorized debit of Rs. 5,00,000/- from his saving account. Branch Manager, Kanhauli vide letter no. BO/K-2/2023-24/229 dated 16.11.2023 reported the same to Regional Office, Siwan. On dated 17.10.2023, another request from Smt. Usha Kumari was received for payment of MMDC Devi A/c no-1006631230000478 was received by Branch. Branch Manager, Kanhauli 2. vide letter dated BO/K- 2/2023-24/224 dated 17.10.2023 reported to Regional Office that the above said MMDC (Account No. 1006631230000478) was not opened in CBS. Regional officer Ordered an internal investigation in the matter wherein the modus operandi of the fraud culminated as under:-
seventy five paise) was reported at Branch Office Shahpur Nautan under Regional Ofice Sivan, wherein the petitioner was found involved in the internal investigation. Modus operandi of the aforesaid fraud is as under:-
"Fake MMDC certificates issued to the customer, amount debited from the account of respective customers but transferred to the other account of the different customer and MMDC account was not opened in Finacle. Amount received for closure of loan account but it was not credited in the said account. Loan amount was also not closed. However, no dues certificate was issued to the customer."
19. That the petitioner was issued Chargesheet No. HO/DAD/16/23-24/271 dated 13.02.2024 and departmental inquiry for the same was underway since 28.05.2024 till 07.12.2024. But the petitioner has been "Dismissed from the Bank's service" vide Disciplinary Authority Order dated 10.12.2024 for his involvement in fraud of Sisai Bazar Branch, therefore the disciplinary proceeding in Chargesheet No. HO/DAD/16/23-
24/271 dated 13.02.2024 pertaining to Shahpur Nautan Branch, Minutes of accountability dated 15.11.2024 pertaining to Kanhauli 2 Branch R.O Siwan and "Fake Fixed deposit certificate was issued to customers. MMDC accounts were neither opened in CBS nor the amount of customers deposited in the MMDC account. In one of the instance the saving account of the customer was debited severally without mandate of customer and amount was transferred to the account of a different customers."
On conclusion of the internal investigation, it came to light that the petitioner is involved in the major irregularities which amounts to Rs. 47,64,316/- and therefore he was held accountable for the fraud. Another FIR has also been lodged for the fraud against the petitioner bearing Darauli P.S Case No. 252 of 2024, in which the petitioner has preferred the instant bail application.
18. That an additional fraud to the tune of Rs. 96,96,175.77l- (Rupees Ninety six lakh ninety six thousand one hundred seventy five and Minutes of accountability dated 16.11.2024 pertaining to additional fraud in Shahpur Nautan Branch R.O Siwan has been kept in abeyance and accordingly it has been reported to Vigilance Department-RRB, Central Office, Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35632 of 2025(7) dt.23-04-2026 17/28 Central Bank of India, Mumbai vide letter dated 16.12.2024.20.
20. That after observing the involvement of the petitioner in such huge amount of embezzlement in various branches and fraud committed in a very sophisticated manner that was not easy to detect as the amount involved in fraud came in light only when the customers approached the branches with their fake MMDC for payment and thus the petitioner was successful in putting curtain over his misdeed for such a long time.
21. That the Court of the XI, Addl. Session Judge, District Gopalganj (Bihar) rejected the Bail application of the petitioner in ABP No. 1159 of 2023 in Bhore P.S Case No. 175/2023 registered u/s 420,406, 467, 468, 471 of IPC for fraud committed by the petitioner while his posting at B.O Sasai Bazar and the court of the 1, Addl. Session Judge-cum-spl judge rejected the Bail application of the petitioner in Nautan P.S Case No. 225/2023 u/s 406, 409, 467, 468/34 of IPC for fraud committed while his posting at Sahpur Nautan and the court of Principal Session Judge, Siwan rejected the anticipatory bail in Darauti P.S Case No. 252/2024 registered under section 409 & 420 of IPC for fraud committed at Kanhauli 2 Branch. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of offence in Nautan P.S Case No. 225 of 2023, Hon'ble HC, Patna has also rejected the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 46681 of 2024 vide Order dated 02.12.2024.
22. That the petitioner has cunningly tried to mislead the Hon'ble court by presenting only his beneficial part of the Bank accountability policy and hid the true spirit of the said policy to check the exemplary fraud committed by him. The clause 7(XII) of Bank accountability policy clearly infers that time limit of two successive audit reports or four years from the date of event will not apply in this case of (i) Fraud (ii) Other Criminal Offenses (iii) Cases where mala-fides are inferable. It is further pertinent to mention here that the objective of the staff accountability policy is to protect the bonafide actions/decisions taken by the staff in the interest of the Bank and not to protect the mischievous committed by persons like the petitioner who being a custodian of public money committed criminal breach of trust for his personal gain and embezzled a huge amount of hard earned public money to the tune of Rs. 1,89,95,765.771- (Rupees One Crore Eighty Nine Lakh Ninety five Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Five and Seventy Seven Paise only). Thus, the petitioner has attempted to present a fragmented and diluted narrative, concealing the systematic and fraudulent nature of his acts. (emphasis supplied)
23. That it is most respectfully submitted that had the petitioner been innocent and not a beneficiary of the fraudulent transactions, he would have duly participated in the departmental proceedings to establish his defense. However, the petitioner deliberately chose to evade and abstain from the enquiry proceedings despite due notices and opportunity being afforded to him. The petitioner was found involved in fiduciary act amounting to the tune of Rs. 1,89,95,765.77/-, wherein he was posted in the branches where the fraud was committed and the modus operandi Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35632 of 2025(7) dt.23-04-2026 18/28 was also the same. Such deliberate non-participation clearly reflects a conscious attempt to avoid lawful proceedings initiated against him, which is a glaring circumstance indicative of his culpability and involvement in the fraudulent acts.
24. That it is submitted that the Hon'ble Court had categorically directed the petitioner vide Order dated 19.03.2026 to appear before the concerned branch on a specified date for obtaining relevan documents. The operative part of the Order is appended below:-
"4. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is ready to present himself before the bank so that all the documents which has led to the lodging of the FIR is/are handed over to him and he could peruse and act accordingly.
5. He undertakes to present himself on 23.03.2026 at 11:00 A.M. before the Branch Manager of the Bank and the Manager shall ensure that in between, all the documents relating to the petitioner is ready, handed over to him and the receipt is to be recorded in the office and brought on record by way of counter affidavit.
6. Let the matter come up on 16.04.2026 on which date, the petitioner shall be filing supplementary affidavit on the development after he receives the documents relating to the fraudulent act as alleged in the present case."
However, the petitioner, in clear and wilful disobedience of the said judicial order, failed to present himself and chose to ignore the mandate of this Hon'ble Court. It is only at a much belated stage that an undated letter was received from the petitioner seeking certain documents, which was well beyond the time granted by this Hon'ble Court and abuse of the Order of his personal presence. Nonetheless, the answering Bank, being a law- abiding institution, supplied the documents in good faith and in adherence to principles of fairness vide letter dated 10.04.2026. Further, it is submitted that the conduct of the petitioner, marked by deliberate non-compliance with judicial directions, clearly demonstrates his disregard for the rule of law. It is a settled principle that a litigant whose conduct is contumacious and who approaches the Court without bona fides disentitles himself from any equitable or discretionary relief, including the grant of bail. The petitioner's conduct further gives rise to a reasonable and well-founded apprehension that, if enlarged on bail, he is likely to tamper with evidence, influence witnesses, and obstruct the ongoing departmental and judicial proceedings. On this ground alone, the present bail application deserves to be rejected.
25. That in view of the continuing investigation, documentary trail disclosed in the investigation reports and concurrent judicial findings refusing anticipatory bail, Respondent Bank submits that grant of interim protection from arrest vide Hon'ble HC Order dated 20.08.2025 may be vacated as it would impede effective investigation and frustrate the process of law and administration of criminal justice and reject the anticipatory bail application outrightly in the interest of justice. " (emphasis supplied) Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35632 of 2025(7) dt.23-04-2026 19/28
9. The present F.I.R. is illustrative of transactions pertaining to one branch of the Gramin Bank; however, the modus operandi emerging from the record prima facie indicates that the alleged scam is not confined to a single branch or to the accused only like petitioner, but is suggestive of the involvement and possible complicity of higher rank officials as well, which gains further force when the reply of the petitioner to the counter affidavit is considered vis-à-vis the admitted position that the fraudulent activities have continued over a considerable period, though the assessment of financial loss has been restricted to only ten years. It is also evident from the Quick Study Report of NABARD that, the irregularities are not limited to the present branch, but extend across several branches of the Cooperative Bank throughout the State since its inception, though the said report, in the present context, pertains only to the F.I.R. in question and does not comprehensively quantify the total financial loss across all the branches. As per paragraph no.
22 of the counter affidavit, the financial loss attributed to the petitioner on account of the alleged fraud has been estimated at Rs. 1,89,95,765.77; however, the petitioner, in defence, has contended that it is incongruous for the bank to allege that the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35632 of 2025(7) dt.23-04-2026 20/28 account of Satyaveer Yadav was forged when the maturity amount has admittedly been defalcated from the said account holder. Further, in view of the established banking procedure, wherein the role of the Office Assistant is that of a "Maker"
whose actions are subject to verification and authorization by higher officials, the occurrence of a fraud of such magnitude without the knowledge, connivance, or active complicity of superior officials cannot be ruled out at this stage.
10. The Quick Study Report submitted by NABARD is not only confined to the present F.I.R. Nevertheless, it stands as an admitted and undisputed position, consistently noticed by this Court in many other FIR relating to other branches which officials are made accused, which suggest that the alleged scam is not restricted to a solitary branch. The involvement of the official of the Bank in ongoing scam since the inception of the Gramin Bank discloses a matter of serious concern involving potential money laundering attracting the provisions of P.M.L.A. Act, 2002.
11. Upon a careful consideration of the information contained in the counter affidavit and the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Bank, as well as, the rejoinder filed by the petitioner, this Court is, prima facie, satisfied that Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35632 of 2025(7) dt.23-04-2026 21/28 the material disclose a grave and large-scale defalcation of public money by bank officials through a well-orchestrated and systematic modus operandi, based on past ten years figures, the prosecution has been initiated against the petitioner, against whom allegation is of committing fraud while he was posted as clerk at Branch office Kanhauli 2 of Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank from June, 2011 to September, 2014 having allegedly embezzled huge amount, which was reported during the internal audit. The other instances this Court has come is that in many other cases, documentary details placed before this Court, indicate misappropriation of substantial funds, which were credited to bank accounts for investments under beneficiary schemes such as the "Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana", as well as, for agricultural loans and agricultural insurance intended for poor farmers. They have not only violated the guidelines and the strict adherence to the NABARD, but, at the same time, they have violated the different circulars of the Reserve Bank of India issued from time to time. It has been specifically informed in paragraph no. 25 of the counter affidavit that there is clear money trial in the present case as revealed in the enquiry report, as well as, Quick Study Report of NABARD, which goes to suggest that the petitioner has not only orchestrated and played Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35632 of 2025(7) dt.23-04-2026 22/28 an active role in "Scam" but also directly benefited. The nature, magnitude, and continuity of the alleged acts suggest that the offence is not confined to isolated transactions but points towards a deep-rooted and organized pattern of government fund misappropriated having wide-ranging ramifications on public confidence in banking institutions. Such acts prima facie appears to be made out not only against the petitioner but complicity of the other bank officials, who are holding higher positions in management cannot be ruled out, which constitute grave economic offence affecting the financial system and the rule of law, and therefore necessitate a thorough, comprehensive, and independent investigation in accordance with law.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that the economic crimes are regularly committed with deliberate design adversely affecting the financial health of the nation. In this regard, I find it appropriate to refer the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Nimmagadda Prasad v. CBI reported in (2013) 7 SCC 466, clearly underscore the settled principle that economic offences stand on a distinct footing and are required to be viewed with greater seriousness while considering the question of bail. The Apex Court has Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35632 of 2025(7) dt.23-04-2026 23/28 emphatically held that such offences are not confined to an individual dispute alone but have far-reaching repercussions on the economic system and public confidence in the administration of justice. It has further been observed that economic crimes are generally committed with deliberate design and calculated intent for personal gain, thereby causing substantial loss to public funds and adversely affecting the financial health of the nation. The Court also reiterated that while considering a prayer for bail, the nature and gravity of accusation, severity of punishment, possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and the larger interest of the public and the State are relevant considerations. Thus, in cases involving deep-rooted conspiracy and large-scale financial irregularities, a stricter approach is warranted, as such offences constitute a class apart and deserve to be dealt with differently in the matter of grant of bail. At the same time, it has consistently been held that in an application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, the Court is restricted to either grant anticipatory bail or reject it but this Court is conscious that this Court is a Constitutional Court and in the situation like this, this Court is of the view that in larger public interest, which necessitates institution of Public Interest Litigation considering Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35632 of 2025(7) dt.23-04-2026 24/28 that not only the trust and faith of the citizen but, at the same time, National Economy and National interest is involved. The economic offence, which has been reported finds it deep root and conspiracy leading to huge loss of public finds and material suggests that not only the petitioner has knowingly and intentionally participated in the process and activities acted with the possession acquisition but the complicity of the higher authority cannot be ruled out and the proceeds satisfying the ingredients of money laundering under Section 3 of the P.M.L.A. Act.
13. In this regard, I find support from the finding and observation of the Apex Court, dealing with the constitutional power of High Court of public importance, in the case of Sanjay Dubey vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 435 has held that under Article 214 of the Constitution of India the High Courts should not lose its sight when it necessitates it in constitution as the present one to abdicate from exercising it Constitutional power. In this regard, I find it gainful to reproduce paragraphs no. 10 to 19 of the aforesaid judgment, which inter alia are as follows:
"10. Having given the matter our anxious and thoughtful consideration, though the appellant may have a point that, stricto sensu, in a petition under Section 439 of the Code, the concerned Court ought not to travel beyond considering the specific issue viz. whether to grant bail or Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35632 of 2025(7) dt.23-04-2026 25/28 reject bail to an accused in custody, it cannot be lost sight of that the Court concerned herein was not a 'Court of Session' but the High Court for the State of Madhya Pradesh, established under Article 214 of the Constitution of India (hereinafter referred to as the "Constitution").
11. This singular fact, for reasons elaborated hereinafter, leads us to decline interfering with the Impugned Judgment, but for different reasons. We have no hesitation in stating that had the Impugned Judgment been rendered by a Court of Session, the factors that would have weighed with us would be starkly different.
12. A little digression is necessitated. The HighCourt is a Constitutional Court, possessing a wide repertoire of powers. The High Court has original, appellate and suo motu powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution are meant for taking care of situations where the High Court feels that some direction(s)/order(s) are required in the interest of justice. Recently, in B S Hari Commandant v Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 413, the present coram had the occasion to hold as under:
"50. Article 226 of the Constitution is a succour to remedy injustice, and any limit on exercise of such power, is only self-imposed. Gainful refer ence can be made to, amongst others, A V Venkateswaran v. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani, (1962) 1 U P SCR 573 and State Sugar Corporation v. Kamal Swaroop Tandon, Ltd. (2008) 2 SCC
41. The High Courts, under the Constitutional scheme, are endowed with the ability to issue prerogative writs to safeguard rights of citizens. For exactly this reason, this Court has never laid down any strait-jacket principles that can be said to have "cribbed, cabined and confined" [to borrow the term employed by the Hon. Bhagwati, J. (as he then was) in E P Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 4 SCC 3 : AIR 1974 SC 555 ] the extraordinary powers vested under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution. Adjudged on the anvil of Nawab Shaqafath Ali Khan (supra), this was a fit case for the High Court to have examined the matter threadbare, more so, when it did not involve navigating a factual minefield." (emphasis supplied)
13. Returning to the present case, though usually the proper course of action of the High Court ought to have been to confine itself to the acceptance/rejection of the prayer for bail made by the accused under Section 439 of the Code; however the High Court, being satisfied that there were, in its opinion, grave lapses on the part of the police/investigative machinery, which may have fatal consequences on the justice delivery system, could not have simply shut its eyes.
14. We are of the view that the learned Single Bench could have directed institution of separate Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35632 of 2025(7) dt.23-04-2026 26/28 proceedings taking recourse to Article 226 of the Constitution, after formulating reasons and points for consideration. Thereafter, the matter should have been referred to the learned Chief Justice of the High Court for placing it before an appropriate Bench, which would proceed in accordance with law, of course, after affording adequate opportunity to the person(s) proceeded against.
15. With regard to the High Court's justified concern to prevent miscarriage of justice, separate/fresh proceedings could have been instituted as indicated above.
We hasten to add that our observations are not to be construed to imply that the High Courts should delve into the efficacy of investigation at the stage of bail, and the present judgment is not to be misread to haul up the investigative agencies/officers in all cases.
16. This Court could have interfered with the 'direction' for departmental proceedings against the appellant, as learned counsel for the appellant advanced, had been so done in Sangitaben Shaileshbhai Datanta (supra) and M Murugesan (supra). However, it would be proper to take note that in the aforesaid two cases, the factual positions were quite different. In Sangitaben Shaileshbhai Datanta (supra), the Court took note of the fact that in the case involving rape of a minor, the High Court ordering the accused and the appellant therein, who was the grandmother of the victim along with parents of the victim to undergo scientific tests viz. lie detection, brain- mapping and narco-analysis was not only in contravention of the first principles of criminal law jurisprudence but also a violation of statutory requirements and thus, the bail granted to the accused was cancelled. The facts of the instant case are quite different, and ergo, Sangitaben Shaileshbhai Datanta (supra) does not aid the appellant.
17. In M Murugesan (supra), it was noted that the jurisdiction of High Court is limited to grant or refuse to grant bail pending trial and such jurisdiction ends when the bail application is finally decided. In this background, the High Court, after taking a decision on the bail application, having retained the file and directing the State to constitute a Committee and seek its recommendation on reformation, rehabilitation and re-integration of convicts/accused persons and best practices for improving the quality of investigation and also to obtain District-wise data from State and upon submission of final data, after reviewing the same, making such data a part of the order after decision on bail application, was held to be beyond jurisdiction. In the present case, on the date of passing of the Impugned Judgment, the bail application was still at large, and had not yet been decided one way or the other.
18. There is no quibble with the propositions lucidlyenunciated in Sangitaben Shaileshbhai Datanta (supra) and M Murugesan (supra). Yet, as our discussions Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35632 of 2025(7) dt.23-04-2026 27/28 in the preceding paragraphs display, the same are inapplicable to the extant factual matrix. It is too well- settled that judgments are not to be read as Euclid's theorems; they are not to be construed as statutes, and; specific cases are authorities only for what they actually decide. We do not want to be verbose in reproducing the relevant paragraphs but deem it proper to indicate some authorities on this point - Sreenivasa General Traders v State of Andhra Pradesh, (1983) 4 SCC 353 and M/s Amar Nath Om Prakash v State of Punjab, (1985) 1 SCC 345 - which have been reiterated, inter alia, in BGS SGS Soma JV v NHPC Limited, (2020) 4 SCC 234, and Chintels India Limited v Bhayana Builders Private Limited, (2021) 4 SCC 602.
19. In the present case, the judgment impugned was passed before the final disposal of the bail application by the High Court. On a closer scrutiny of the judgment impugned, it is clear that the Superintendent of Police, Katni, while appearing in person on 21.09.2022 had submitted that he had already line-attached the appellant vide an order dated 20.09.2022 and was initiating enquiry for imposition of major penalty. The High Court was informed that the Superintendent of Police, Katni would "get conducted preliminary enquiry in the hands of the Additional S.P. and forward the report to the disciplinary authority of the T.I. to initiate inquiry for major penalty."
14. Based on the material which has come in the counter affidavit, rejoinder to the counter affidavit and the supplementary counter affidavit, a case of fraud committed by the bank personnel falls within the ambit of predicate offence.
15. Since the allegation of large scale misappropriation and corruption in banking transaction involving not only fraud reported involvement of the petitioner in respect of fraudulent withdrawal of money of an account holder namely Satyaveer Yadav, it also involves siphoning of government fund deposited for distribution on account of Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35632 of 2025(7) dt.23-04-2026 28/28 different government schemes, which has affected the economy of the nation causing serious threat to the financial health of the country, at the same time, has eroded public confidence and as this Court finds it proper not to be treated lightly. I find it proper to direct the Registry of this Court to place the records of this case before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice in larger public interest and in the interest so that a strict measure can be taken to stop misappropriation of public money.
16. The interim protection granted to the petitioner vide order dated 20.08.2025 shall continue.
17. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the office of learned Advocate General, Bihar, Chairman, Bihar Gramin Bank to seek instruction and Dr. K.N. Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General, Union of India, so that he may communicate this order to the Reserve Bank of India and Ministry of Home Affairs and Finance, Government of India for placing action taken report before the appropriate Bench on or before 18.06.2026.
(Purnendu Singh, J) Niraj/-
U T