Rama Kant Singh vs State of Jharkhand and Another

R.R. Prasad, J.—Heard learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner Rama Kant Singh and learned Counsel appearing for the Anshu Singh and others as well as learned Counsel appearing for the Bank.

It is a case of the prosecution that a current account was opened in the State Bank of India, Mirja Chowki Branch in the name of Rama Kant Singh through power of attorney holder Ashu Singh. The said power of attorney had been executed by Rama Kant Singh in favour of Ashu Singh on 31.1.2007.

Further case is that the then Branch Manager in conspiracy with other accused extended facility of overdraft to the borrower to the extent of Rs. 72 lacs by breaching rules and regulations of the Bank. Since the amount rose to that extent, Ashu Singh was asked to make payment. Upon which three cheques were issued by Suman Singh, sister of Ashu Singh in favour of Rama Kant Singh against the cheque purchase account (current account) which on its deposit got dishonoured. In course of time, Ashu Singh was asked by the Bank to come with Rama Kant Singh so that the account be settled. Upon which, one Jagteshwar Singh (father of Ashu Singh) was produced, who impersonated himself as Rama Kant Singh and executed certain documents in the name of Rama Kant Singh. However, the outstanding amount has remained unpaid.

Second part of the prosecution case is that the Petitioner Rama Kant Singh had deposited seven Bank guarantees worth Rs. 1,32,26,000/- said to have been issued by the said Branch before the National Highway Authority which were found to be forged but since those Bank guarantees were found to be issued by the Branch Manager of the Bank, it was invoked by the authority, as a result of which, the Petitioner- Rama Kant Singh put the bank to the loss of Rs. 1,32,26,000/- and that apart the accused Rama Kant Singh and other accused also put the Bank to loss to Rs. 72,00,000/-.

Mr. K.P. Deo, learned Counsel appearing for the Rama Kant Singh submits that it is true that power of attorney had been executed by the Petitioner in favour of Ashu Singh for operating Bank accounts but he without any authority and without knowledge of the Petitioner drew Rs. 72,00,000/- from the Bank under overdraft facility in connivance with the Bank Manager and hence, the Petitioner is not liable to liquidate the said amount.

Learned Counsel further submits that conduct of Ashu Singh would go to demonstrate that drawing of the aforesaid amount was his personal act and that too in connivance with the Bank Manager as when the Bank authority asked Ashu Singh to liquidate the outstanding amount, Ashu Singh got three cheques issued by his sister in the name of this Petitioner but those cheques got dishonoured and that father of Ashu Singh by impersonating himself as Rama Kant Singh executed certain documents and under this situation, the Petitioner is not liable to make payment of the outstanding amount which has swelled to the extent of Rs. 87,97,735.95.

Learned Counsel further submits that so far other part of the allegation is concerned, the Petitioner has already deposited a sum of Rs. 1,28,00,000/- as against Rs. 1,32,26,000/- which is due to be paid on account of bank guarantee being invoked by the authority and thus, only a sum of Rs. 4,26,000/- has remained to be paid on account of that, which the Petitioner is ready to deposit.

Learned Counsel further submits that the Petitioner is even ready to furnish collateral security as against outstanding amount of Rs. 87,97,735.95. In spite of the fact that the Petitioner is not liable to pay the said amount but the court may take notice that the Petitioner Ashu Singh never complied the order passed by the Court whereby he has been directed earlier to make payment of Rs. 5,00,000/-.

Mr. Jha, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Ashu Singh submits that whatever act has been done by this Petitioner, it has been done at the instance of the Petitioner Rama Kant Singh but now the Petitioner Rama Kant Singh has turned his back and is saying that drawing of overdraft facility is a personal act of Ashu Singh which cannot be accepted in view of the fact that Rama Kant Singh has made an application before the Bank expressing his desire that he is ready to make payment which is due on account of extending overdraft facility.

Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the Bank submits that if the payment as stated by the Petitioner Rama Kant Singh is made towards outstanding on account of invoking of the bank guarantee and furnishes collateral security for liquidating outstanding existing as Rs. 87,97,735/- he will have no objection in granting anticipatory bail to him.

Regard being had to the facts and circumstances as has been emerged and noted above, the Petitioner, Rama Kant Singh is directed to surrender before the court below within three weeks from today and on his surrender and on showing deposit of a sum of Rs. 4,26,000/- and on producing proof of filing collateral security for the amount as stated above before the Bank, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj in Borio (Mirza Chowki) P.S. case No. 123 of 2007 (G.R. No. 382 of 2007) subject to condition as laid down u/s 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Similarly, the Petitioners, Ashu Singh and Jagteshwar Singh @ Nanhu Singh are directed to surrender before the court below within three weeks from today and on their surrender and on showing deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/- they shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj in Borio (M) P.S case No. 123 of 2007 (G.R. No. 382 of 2007), subject to condition as laid down u/s 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.