ANAND KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties being informant as well as the Bank in both the cases and learned A.P.P. for the State and after hearing the parties, this common order is being passed. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he was holding the post of Branch Manager of Bank of India, Asangi Branch in the District of Seraikella, Kharsawan. He has accepted Fixed Deposit and thereafter in course of normal banking duty, transferred amount and also sanctioned loan amount in favour of informant as well as on their instruction to some other persons, who were introduced as staff and servant of informant.

(2.) This petitioner was granted provisional bail vide order dated 19.09.2018 in B.A. No.4512 of 2018 in connection with Adityapur P.S. Case No.373 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. No.1291 of 2017 and in B.A. No.3061 of 2018 in connection with Adityapur P.S. Case No.291 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. No.1364 of 2016. He prayed for confirmation of his provisional bail. Learned counsel further submitted that allegation upon this petitioner is not correct and just to realize the amount from the informant and loan amount of other persons, he has been made accused in this case. The Fixed Deposit made by informant was opened in the Bank and informant availed loan against his T.D.R for the purpose of construction of house. This petitioner has followed all Banking procedures either in accepting the Fixed Deposit or in sanctioning the loan amount relevant to these cases. Learned A.P.P. assisted by the counsel for the bank namely Bank of India and learned counsel for informant, opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that loan accounts were opened and operated in violation of the Banking norms with connivance of the accused persons including the informant of Adityapur P.S. Case No.291 of 2016. They further submitted that witnesses have supported the prosecution version and have stated about connivance of petitioner while he was posted in the Branch and irregularities were committed during his tenure. No proper reply was given to the enquiry team while the Bank constituted a team for investigation in this matter.

(3.) Learned counsel for the informant of Adityapur P.S. Case No.291 of 2016 submitted that by keeping them in dark, the Fixed Deposits kept in the said Branch were misutilized by opening loan account against this Fixed Deposit and money was also transacted in between the interest amount of the F.D.R. by crediting in the loan account and stopping of interest which were paid only for one year and thereafter, without obtaining the consent of the informant, accused Branch Manager/petitioner transferred those interest amount in the loan account allegedly standing in the name of informant. When informant came to know about the loan account standing against her name then she approached the Bank but no proper reply was given to her and due to that constraint she filed the case being Adityapur P.S. Case No.291 of 2016. Lastly, counsel for the informant submitted that although he has not mentioned in his counter affidavit but they came to know about the lodgment of F.I.R. being Seraikella (Adityapur) P.S. Case No.107 of 2016 dated 13.05.2016 filed by Shobha Kumari Soni in which this petitioner is also one of the named accused. Replying to the above contention, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that case lodged by Sobha Kumari Soni, as per his instruction, has been dropped.