SURENDRA NATH SENAPATI Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is at present working as Chief Manager (International Remittance Centre) of State Bank of India, Kolkata, has filed this application under section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Economic Offences Wing, Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No.29 of 2013 registered under sections 419/420/467/468/471 read with section 120 -B of Indian Penal Code corresponding to C.T. Case No. 4277 of 2013 pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar.

(2.) ONE Manash Ranjan Mohanty who is the Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Regional Business Office -II, Bhubaneswar Zone -II, Bhubaneswar submitted the FIR before the Superintendent of Police, Economic Offence Wing, CID, Crime Branch, Bhubaneswar, Orissa stating therein that Sakhigopal Branch of State Bank of India had sanctioned 51 numbers of personal loan of Rs.1,17,05,000 to E.CO. Railway employees during the period 2003 to 2006 on the strength of check off by the Drawing and Disbursing Officer (DDOs) and pay slip submitted by the employees. It is stated that the loans were recommended by the Field Officer/Deputy Manager and sanctioned by the Branch Manager of Sakhigopal Branch. When the loan accounts became irregular due to non -payment of installments, on taking up the matter with Railway Authorities for recovery, the Senior Division Personel Officer of E.Co. Railways, Khurda Road lodged complaint, inter alia, citing forgery of the DDO's signature on the salary slip, on letter of authority for deduction from salary and remittance to loan account etc. and it is stated that 14 nos. of persons were not found in the employees roll of E.Co. Railway. It is further stated in the FIR that the personal loan have been availed by submitting fake/fabricated documents and some of them are not in the employee record even though they have availed loan claiming as permanent employees of the Railways. Out of 51 loan accounts, 5 accounts were closed and the rest were irregular. It is stated that the petitioner and one J.C. Nahak were the Branch Managers during the period of sanction and S.K. Sadaquat Alli, Umesh Chandra Kar were the Field Officers who recommended the loan.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner worked as Branch Manager of State Bank of India, Sakhigopal Branch from 1.1.2004 to 26.7.2006 and in respect of the alleged transactions, KYC norms were adhered to by the petitioner and residential address were verified by the concerned Field Officer during the sanction of loan. It is further submitted that the petitioner sanctioned 46 loan proposals out of the 51 nos. of personal loan as mentioned in the FIR and out of 46, 6 loan accounts have been closed in normal course of repayment. It is further submitted that as per the office order, a Field Officer of Deputy Manager Grade was looking after the personal advance and the Field Officer was categorically instructed to verify the genuineness of the proposals/documents and recommendation for sanction. It is submitted that the petitioner sanctioned the loan on the basis of recommendation of the Field Officer and he had acted and followed the norms for the better growth of the Bank and prior to the sanction of loan, the Field Officer had verified the genuineness/proposal of documents and recommended for sanction of loan and accordingly the petitioner as Branch Manager sanctioned the loan basing on such recommendation and therefore it is urged that the ingredients of offences under which the case has been registered are not made out against the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as per the Bank instructions, at the relevant point of time, a scheme named as "Suvidha" loans was introduced during the year 2004 -2006 and the eligibility of the borrowers were calculated from the salary certificates issued by Railway Authorities. It is submitted that since the Railway is a Central Government Organization, the petitioner without insisting for salary accounts accepted check off facility from the DDO for sanction of loan. It was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner is serving as the Chief Manager which is a very high ranking post in the State Bank of India, there is no chance of absconding and the case is based mainly on documentary evidence and when the investigation has made substantial progress and all the relevant documents have been seized, unless anticipatory bail is granted, the petitioner may be arrested and thereby his image in the public would be tarnished and he would unnecessarily face humiliation by the Investigating Agency.