IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.45216 of 2009 SANJEEV KUMAR SINGH . Versus UNION OF INDIA THRU.C.B.I. . ----------- 2. 18.01.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the C.B.I. The defence on behalf of the petitioner in Special Case No. 08 of 2008 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Penal Code read with Prevention of Corruption Act placing reliance on A.I.R. 2004 Supreme Court 3623 (Manoranjan Das v. State of Jharkhand) is that he was only introducer of the account and, therefore, cannot be fastened the responsibility for the loss suffered by the Bank. Counsel for the C.B.I. states that the case before the Supreme Court related to the individual defaulter, whereas in the present case during investigation it transpired that the petitioner has acted as a middleman by introducing more than one account holder who had obtained loan on the basis of fictitious securities. This Court is not persuaded to grant him the privilege of anticipatory bail. The application is rejected. Any application for regular bail on behalf of the petitioner before the court below shall be considered on its own merits without being prejudiced by the present order. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)