Ghanshyam Mandal vs State of Jharkhand

Heard the parties through video conferencing.

Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter within two weeks after the lockdown is over.

In view of personal undertaking given by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter are ignored for the present.

The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No.42 of 2013, corresponding to Special (Vigilance) Case No. 45 of 2013, registered under sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(c)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that while the petitioner was posted as Block Cooperative Extension Officer and of officiating as Managing Director of Dhanbad Central Cooperative Bank, Dhanbad in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused person was instrumental for disbursement of loan without proper verification. It is next submitted that the petitioner in discharge of official duty has forwarded loan application of Gopalichak Colliery Cooperative Credit Society by recommendation dated 11.02.2004. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is further submitted that the recommendation dated 11.02.2004 made by the petitioner has been turned down by the Dhanbad Cooperative Bank and thereafter another recommendation was forwarded on 03.03.2004 with which the petitioner is not associated and the said recommendation has been acted upon and the loan has been disbursed to the said Gopalichak Colliery Cooperative Credit Society. It is also submitted that the members of the Cooperative Society who have been granted loan are the employees of BCCL. It is then submitted that the petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the trial of the case. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 28.12.2020 as mentioned in paragraph 31 of the bail application. Hence it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail.

Learned Spl. P.P. opposes the prayer for bail.

Considering the facts of this case, the above named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Judge-II-cum-Spl. Judge (A.C.B.), Dhanbad in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No.42 of 2013, corresponding to Special (Vigilance) Case No. 45 of 2013 with the condition that he will co-operate with the trial of the case.