Raj Srivastava vs State Of Jharkhand

Anil Kumar Choudhary, J

Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Jadugora P.S. Case No. 40 of

2019 registered under Sections 406/419/420/467/ 468/471/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the facts of the case is that Jharkhand State Co-operative Bank Ltd. Jadugora Branch has

constituted a team for enquiry into a case of defalcation of Rs. 1, 47, 66,000.00/- from the said bank. It is further submitted that it was found by the

enquiry team that the Branch Manager Umesh Chandra Singh of Jadugora Branch and the petitioner who was the then Assistant Manager under a

conspiracy sanctioned overdraft of Rs. 89,46,419/- to one Uday Pratap Singh Bhatia and Rs. 25,53,581/- to one K.S. Hamid Madin Kutti after

exceeding their jurisdiction and to suppress the aforesaid overdraft they sanctioned forged loan to 23 persons between 03.12.2012 to 11.12.2012 by

sanctioning Rs. 5,00,000/- for each loan i.e. total of Rs. 1,15,00,000/- and also forged loan was sanctioned without any application and without

obtaining sanction of any of the competent authority and by transfer the aforesaid loan amount were credited to the account of the said two co-

accused the concerned persons whom fraudulent overdraft was allowed by the petitioner and the co-accused illegally but it was not maintained and

entered in the respective saving account and after opening account of Umesh Chandra Singhit was found that by manipulation the petitioner and the

co-accused persons managed to was grant overdraft of Rs. 89,46,419/- between 05.04.2002 to 31.07.2007 though the account was opened only with

Rs.100/- on 22.03.2002 and account of K.S. Hamid was opened on 31.12.2005 with only Rs. 5000/-and he was granted overdraft of Rs. 25,53,581/-

between 07.01.2006 to 31.03.2008 and thus such a huge amount has been defalcated by the aforesaid persons. By drawing the attention of court at

page 103 of the brief which is part of the FIR learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the co-accused person has intimated the Joint

Director of the Co-operative Society, South Chotanagpur Division, Jharkhand and accepted that by manipulation of account books he allowed

overdraft for the amount without realization of the said defalcated amount and has made false entry and tried to hide the overdraft amount and which

entries were neither made in expenditure and deposit ledger nor in general account ledger and even not in individual saving account. Learned counsel

for the petitioner submits that Uday Pratap Singh has deposited Rs. 12,00,000/- of the said defalcated amount and has also proposed that he will

deposit the remaining amount. It is also submitted that Yahul Hamid will return the defalcated amount, hence, the petitioner be given the privilege of

anticipatory bail.

Learned Addl.P.P., on the other hand, vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required

during the investigation of the case as he has defalcated a huge amount of money of more than a crore of rupees hence; the petitioner ought not to be

given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of defalcating a huge amount of money of more than a crore of rupees and the

requirement of custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required in the investigation, this court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case to

enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Hence, the anticipatory bail of the petitioner stands rejected.