Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:2666-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11358 of 2024 Petitioner :- Mithilesh Kumar Tiwari Respondent :- Uoi Thru. Secy. Of Ministry Finance Deptt. New Delhi And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manuvendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Alok Saxena Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J. 1. Shri Shailesh, holding brief of Shri Anurag Srivastava, Counsel for Union of India says that in a similar writ petition where the counsel was the same bearing Writ C No.10877 of 2024 has been dismissed on 02.01.2025. The said order reads as under : "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anurag Srivastava, learned counsel for the Bank. The petitioner challenges an indemnity bond or letter of indemnity submitted by him. The facts of the case in brief are that fraud had been committed with regard to the fixed deposits receipts issued by the Bank and a CBI investigation is pending in this regard. The Bank, therefore, asked the petitioner to submit an indemnity bond so that fixed deposit amount may be released in his favour with the stipulation that in future if the said fixed deposits are found to be fraudulent and involvement of petitioner is found therein then the petitioner will have to make good the cause, which was submitted and now the petitioner seeks to challenge the same. We see no reason to interfere in such a matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue other remedies as may be permissible in law uninfluenced by dismissal of this petition. " 2. Counsel for the petitioner says that some factual facts have incorrectly been mentioned in the said order. He says that the Bank Manager had sanctioned CC loan on the Fixed Deposits of the petitioner and the CBI investigation in respect of sanctioning of such loan is continuing. He says that the recital to this affect in the above quoted order that fraud had been committed with regard to the Fixed Deposits receipts issued by the Bank is not correct. The correct position has been mentioned hereinabove. 3. Be that as it may, even if the factual position as pointed out by the petitioner is taken into consideration, we see no reason to interfere in such a matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the other reasons given in the above quoted order and Counsel for the petitioner fairly agreed to this. 4. We, accordingly, dismiss this petition however, with liberty to the petitioner to pursue other remedies as may be permissible in law uninfluenced by dismissal of this petition. Order Date :- 16.1.2025 Pks [Brij Raj Singh,J.] [Rajan Roy, J.] Digitally signed by :- POOJA SETH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench