IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.31701 of 2011 Braj Kishore Thakur S/o Late Ramnandan Thakur, R/o Village- Akharagah Road Sheikhpur, P..S- Ahiyapur, Dist.-Muzaffarpur …Petitioner Versus The State Of Bihar …OP -------------------- 3/ 14.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner seeks bail in a case instituted for the offence under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471/34, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and section 43/66 of the I. T. Act. The prosecution case is that 10.05.2011, the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, ADB Branch, Bhagwanpur, Muzaffarpur, received information from ARISTO Pharmaceuticals, which was a account holder in their Bank, that on 10.05.2011 a sum of Rs.12,50,00,000/- had wrongly been withdrawn from their account through RTGS. Rupees twelve crores was transferred to Maharani Automobiles, Ratu Road, Ranch, in HDFC bank account no.1470200001530 and rupees fifty lacs in the account of Shiv Shakti Trader, Bhagwanpur, Muzaffarpur, in Syndicate Bank account No. 74911240000507. It was learnt that password of Sudhakar Sinha and Mahesh Das, both employees of the State Bank had been used in the said transaction. On enquiry from Syndicate Bank, it was found that proprietor of Shiv Shakti Trader i.e. Shyam Kumar Singh son of Harishankar Singh had withdrawn a sum of rupees fifty lacs on the same day. On this information, First Information Report was instituted making Shyam Kuamr Singh account holder of Shiv Shakti Trader in Syndicate Bank and account 2 holder of HDFC Bank as accused. During investigation, it transpired that the petitioner, who was Field Officer, was officiating as Accountant on that particular day since the Accountant was on leave on that particular day. However, in the case diary there is absolutely no material that the petitioner was in any manner involved in the present case. Considering the same, let the petitioner, above named, who is a Field Officer of State Bank of India, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.5,000/- (five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each or any other surety to be fixed by the court below to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, in connection with Muzaffarpur Sadar P.S. Case No.176 of 2011, subject to the conditions (i) That one of the bailors will be a close relative of the petitioner, who will give an affidavit giving genealogy as to how he is related with the petitioner. The bailors will undertake to furnish information to the court about any change in the address of the petitioner, (ii) That the affidavit shall clearly state that the petitioner is not an accused in any other case and, if he is, he shall not be released on bail, (iii) That the bailors shall also state on affidavit that they will inform the court concerned if the petitioner is implicated in any other case of similar nature after his release in the present case and thereafter the court below will be at liberty to initiate the proceeding for cancellation of bail on the ground of misuse, (iv) That the petitioner will give an undertaking that he will receive the police papers on the given date and be present on date fixed for charge and if he fails to do so on two given 3 dates and delays the trial in any manner, his bail will be liable to be cancelled for reasons of misuse, and (v) That the petitioner will be well represented on each date and if he fails to do so on two consecutive dates, his bail will be liable to be cancelled. On going through the case diary, I find that when accused Shyam Kumar Singh son of Harishankar Singh, Janki Sadan, Sahjanand Road, Rewa Road, P.S.-Sadar, District- Muzaffarpur, Proprietor of Shiv Shakti Traders was examined, he stated that he was account holder of Syndicate Bank to which 50 lakhs had been transferred. He stated that one Rajeev Ranjan son of Din Bandhu Singh, resident of Paraw Pokhar, P.S.-Kazi Mohammadpur, District- Muzaffarpur, who was his close friend, had told him that some money meant for him would be transferred in the account of Shyam Kumar Singh and on the said date he was told by him that rupees fifty lacs has come and he along with the said Rajiv Ranjan went to the bank and withdrew the money and gave it to him. Surprisingly, no effort seems to have been made by the Investigating Officer to question the said Rajiv Ranjan till 31.07.2011, which speaks volumes of quality of investigation being made in a fraud of this magnitude. I also find from paragraph 34 that twelve crores was transferred to HDFC Bank, Ratu Road Branch, Ranchi, in the name of Shiv Shanker Prasad son of Hari Kishun Sao, resident of Pandara Road, P.S. Kotwali, Ranchi, Proprietor of Maharani Automobiles and the account of was opened only on 31.01.2011 and there was practically no money in the account whereafter on 10.05.2011 4 rupees twelve crores had been deposited in the said account. Out of twelve crores, rupees eleven crore ninety eight lac was immediately transferred to the account of Velocity International having account no. 01502560005387 which was also of HDFC Bank, Club Road Branch, and the account holder was one Sandeep Mishra. However, operation of the said account was stopped and no money could be withdrawn from the said account. Unfortunately, there is also no investigation on the identity or the role of Sandeep Mishra and Shiv Shanker Prasad in whose account rupees eleven crore ninety eight lac and twelve crore respectively had been transferred from the State Bank of India, Muzaffarpur. The Sr. Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur, is directed to look into the lapses deliberate or otherwise being committed by the Investigating Officer and, in my opinion, investigation should be entrusted to an Officer, who is efficient in order to ensure that the culprits are brought to book and such types of fraud do not re-occur in future. Let this order be communicated to the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur, through FAX at the cost of the State. JA/- (Anjana Prakash,J.)