IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.11886 of 2010 SUDHIR KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR THRU. CBI. ----------- 6/ 29.06.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the C.B.I. Petitioner is an accused in a case under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. One Kumar Harendra, the Branch Manager, Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, Rukunpura Branch, Patna filed a written complaint to Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Patna on 11.12.2007 alleging that the then Branch Manager of Patliputra Gramin Bank, Rukunpura Branch misappropriated Rs. 42,33,920/- in league with other accused persons. The allegation is that petitioner disbursed 14 fake loans for goat rearing, flour mill etc. The further allegation is of disbursement of 13 applications forms without conducting any pre-sanction assessment and in gross violation of the procedure, solely on the basis of papers produced by one Dharambir Kumar @ Dharambir Yadav. It has also been alleged that he sanctioned 13 SGSY schemes on the basis of applications that contained incorrect details and fake B.P.L. numbers. The prosecution case also contains allegation that petitioner disbursed 40 Kisan Credit Certificate on the basis of fake photographs, fake signatures and certificates. The petitioner submits that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Referring to the charge-sheet, he submits that the main allegation was of not conducting any pre- sanction assessment in violation of procedure, solely on the basis of - 2 - paper produced by one Dharambir Kumar. He states that it is wrong to state that his power to sanction loan was restricted to 18.10.2004. Furthermore, the loan application forms, which were received by the petitioner were generated at the block level and duly attested and forwarded by Block Development Officer and Block Extension Officer. The aforesaid facts would be evident itself from the documents which were transmitted by the officer at the block level. The officers at the Block level certified that they had verified the photographs and signatures of the concerned applicants in all these cases. The petitioner submits that after due attestation thereupon and obtaining signature of loanees, loans were disbursed. He further submits that pre-sanction assessment would mean verification of the application forms which contained the due attestations and signatures on photographs etc. Thus, according to petitioner, he cannot be saddled with allegations that he did not conduct pre-sanction assessment. Furthermore, the investigations revealed that fake photographs and incorrect details were collected by one Dharambir, who got it further processed at Bakhtiyarpur block level. Thus, petitioner submits that aforesaid Dharambir Kumar has already been granted bail and his wife Sobha Devi too has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court. The petitioner is in custody since 16.02.2010. Counsel for the C.B.I. submits that Sobha Devi was allowed anticipatory bail, as she agreed to deposit the entire amount. He - 3 - further submits that Dharambir Kumar is not a Bank employee and the primary responsibility of ascertaining the things before making disbursement was of this petitioner. After hearing the parties, it would appear that the main allegation is that petitioner did not make pre-sanction assessment before grant of loan. The responsibility for granting / disbursement of loan was mainly on the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 16.02.2010. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail. His prayer for bail is rejected. However, he may renew his prayer for bail after completing six months in jail custody. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)