IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.26401 of 2008 DILIP KUMAR MEHTA @ MAHTHA Versus THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH C.B.I. ----------- 4. 26.9.2008 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Special Case No.7/2004 arising out of R.C. 22A/2004 for the alleged offences registered under sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code and section 13(2) read with section 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In this case several persons have been made accused. The allegation against the petitioner is to the effect that he in conspiracy with the then Branch Manager of the Punjab National Bank got Bank drafts, which were issued in his favour on the basis of fake transactions/fake entries. The further allegation against the petitioner is that he on receiving the Bank drafts deposited the same in his account and the proceeds of the same were deposited in the housing loan account of the wife of the said Branch Manager Awadhesh Kumar. In another instance the Bank drafts which were issued to him, the petitioner deposited those Bank drafts in his savings bank account and with the proceeds of that, he prepared a Bank draft and deposited in the account of one Ram Subhag Singh. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that from the above, it would appear that the petitioner was not the beneficiaries of 2 the proceeds of those Bank drafts. It is further submitted that one co- accused, namely, Shailesh Kumar Mahtha @ Shailesh Kumar Mehta having similar allegations was allowed anticipatory bail by this Court as per the order dated 27.3.2006 passed in Cr.Misc. No.12202 of 2006. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has having clean antecedent. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation while opposing the prayer for bail submits that on perusal of the chargesheet filed against this petitioner, it would appear that the above Bank drafts were issued in favour of the petitioner without having any authority for the same. In other words, the Bank drafts in question were issued on the basis of the fake entries in the records of the Bank. It is further submitted that the proceeds of the aforesaid Bank drafts were not withdrawn by the petitioner for his own use. However, as regards the third transaction with regard to the deposit of the money on the basis of the cheque issued by Basant Jha, the amount was deposited in the KCC account of this petitioner and as such this amount was kept by him in his account. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in reply, submits that at best the allegation against the petitioner is to the effect that he did not withdraw the entire amount for his own pecuniary benefits. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions of the respective parties, as noticed above, it is 3 directed that the petitioner above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender in connection with Special Case No.7/2004 arising out of R.C. 22A/2004, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Special Judge,C.B.I., North Bihar, Patna, in connection with the aforesaid case, on the conditions mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As promised, the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (One lac fifty thousand) in the court below. However, the said deposit shall be subject to the final outcome of the criminal case in question. The application is, accordingly, disposed of. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)