Patna High Court - Orders
Amrendra Kumar vs The Central Bureau Of Investigation on 6 September, 2022
Author: Satyavrat Verma
Bench: Satyavrat Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36563 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-9 Year-2018 Thana- C.B.I CASE District- Patna
======================================================
Amrendra Kumar, S/O Late Anil Kumar Verma Resident Of Village- Babui
Tola, P.O And P.S.- Bagha, District- West Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/S
Versus
1. The Central Bureau Of Investigation
2. The General Manager, Union Bank, Mumbai
3. The Deputy General Manager, Union Bank, Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kundan Kumar- Advocate
For the C.B.I. : Ms. Nivedita Nirvikar- Sr. Advocate
For the Union Bank : Mr. Kumar Alok- Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 06-09-2022Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned senior counsel for the C.B.I. and learned counsel for the Union Bank.
The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and later on charge-sheet has been submitted under Sections 120B read with Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the I.P.C. and Section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of one case and is a Scale-II Officer of Union Bank presently and the informant alleges that while petitioner was posted as Branch Manager, Corporation Bank, Raja Bazar Branch, Patna in connivance with named accused persons has Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36563 of 2022(3) dt.06-09-2022 2/3 disbursed loan to the tune of Rs.788.50 lakhs during the period 2015- 2018. Further, alleges that 43 loans were sanctioned on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. It is next alleged that Rs.536.25 Lakhs is outstanding against 43 loans account. It is further alleged that 42 borrower of units out of 43 were found non-existant and amount of Rs.766.50 Lakhs were disbursed in their favour.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from bare perusal of the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R., it would manifest that the thrust of allegation is of disbursing loan based on forged and fabricated documents to non-existant entities.
The learned counsel submits that prima facie the allegation stands falsified for the reason that out of 43 loans, which was sanctioned by the petitioner out of which, 27 accounts have been settled and for the rest of the accounts, steps under the Securitization Act i.e. under Section 13(2) of the Act has already been initiated. It is next submitted that petitioner is a Scale-II Officer of the Bank and it was within his power to disburse loan. It is also submitted that though allegation is of disbursing loan based on forged and fabricated documents to non-existing entities, but then how come 27 accounts have been settled. Further, on what basis the bank is proceeding against rest under Section 13(2) of the Securitization Act.
The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner during course of investigation has fully co-operated with the C.B.I. and the C.B.I. never felt the need of arresting the petitioner for Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36563 of 2022(3) dt.06-09-2022 3/3 eliciting any further information. The learned counsel further submits that his appointment was with the Corporation Bank which subsequently merged with the Union Bank, but the loans were disbursed when petitioner was posted with the Corporation Bank and thereafter, the bank also proceeded departmentally against the petitioner and inflicted him with a punishment of reducing his pay scale. The learned counsel thus submits that even the bank did not find it to be a case where extreme punishment of dismissal was warranted.
The learned counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation seeks time for filing counter-affidavit.
As prayed for, put up this case on 17.11.2022.
In the meantime, there shall be no coercive action against the petitioner until the matter is finally adjudicated by this Court in connection with Ranchi CBI/EOW/ Ranchi 2018 RC 09(S)/ 2018.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/-
U T