-1- A.B.A. No. 3986 of 2025 2025:JHHC:29567 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI ----- A.B.A. No. 3986 of 2025 ---- Manoj Kumar, aged about 55 years, son of late Damodar Prasaad Permanent r/o Subodh Palace, Shivpuram, Rukanpura, District Patna, Bihar, presently resident of Mahavir Colony, Road No.8, PO Anishabad, PS Beur Anisabad, District Patna (Bihar) the then posted as Branch Manager, Shikaripara Branch, State Bank of India, Dumka, Jharkhand .... Petitioner -- Versus -- Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) .... Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner :- Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate For the C.B.I. :- Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharti, Advocate ---- 3/23.09.2025 Heard Mr.A.K. Kashyap, learned Senior counsel for petitioner and Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharti, learned counsel for the C.B.I. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Case No.R.C.01(A)/2023(D), for offence registered under section 120B r/w 409 and 420 of the IPC and section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, pending in court of learned Special Judge, CBI-Cum- Additional Sessions Judge-Ist, Dhanbad. -2- A.B.A. No. 3986 of 2025 3. Mr. Kashyap, the learned Senor counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the role of the petitioner in alleged defalcation of credit and debit in various accounts of the Bank of the different account holders causing total loss of Rs.2,92,07,276/- along with enclosures of other charge sheeted persons are made. He further submits that on the strength of Section 120B of the IPC, the petitioner has been made accused along with others and other accused persons’ name has come in the charge sheet with regard to allegations made upon the petitioner and one late Sudhir Bouri. By way of referring the charge sheet, he then submits that along with this petitioner, there are other co-accused persons who have been named along with this petitioner. He then submits that Babi Devi and Shashi Suman @ Sashi Suman have been granted anticipatory bail in A.B.A. No.1779 of 2025 and A.B.A. No.4820 of 2025, respectively. He next submits that the C.B.I. has investigated the matter in which the petitioner has fully cooperated in the investigation and now the C.B.I has submitted the charge sheet. He also submits that in view of the submission of the charge sheet, the C.B.I has not arrested the petitioner in course of the investigation and in light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in several judgments relating to the C.B.I. that has been rightly done. He then submits that if the custodial requirement is not there, the petitioner may kindly be granted anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharti, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent C.B.I vehemently opposed -3- A.B.A. No. 3986 of 2025 the prayer and submits that the petitioner was posted as Branch Manager of different Branches of State Bank of India (SBI). By way of referring the charge sheet, the further submits that the petitioner being the Branch Manager in connivance with others, along with late Sudhir Bouri illegally and without mandate has transacted through batch and individual posting into the accounts of self and his family members thereby misappropriated the amount. He then submits that name of the petitioner has come in the main charge sheet as well as the supplementary charge sheet dated 30.05.2024. He next submits that this matter relates to economic offence, the petitioner being the public servant has misappropriated such amount, and in view of that, the petitioner may not be granted anticipatory bail. Mr. Bharti, the learned counsel for the CBI further submits that one material fact has been suppressed by the petitioner that he is involved in identical nature of case being R.C. Case No.6/2022 and in view of that also, the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail. He refers to the case of Munnesh v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 389 and he refers to paragraph no.9 and 11 of the said judgment, which are quoted below: “9. Be that as it may, since the petitioner has suppressed material facts with regard to his involvement in criminal cases, he is not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail. Even otherwise, the trial has progressed reasonably and hence, no case for releasing the petitioner on bail has been set up. 11. However, before parting, we consider it necessary to dwell on one aspect. Agrowing trend is being noticed of individuals, seeking from this Court the concession of bail or concession of -4- A.B.A. No. 3986 of 2025 protection from arrest, not disclosing in the special leave petitions their involvement in other criminal cases. In such cases where involvement is not disclosed, on a prima facie satisfaction that long incarceration without reasonable progress in the trial is invading the right to life of the accused or that the offences for which the FIR has been registered are not too serious, notices are issued and only thereafter, information of criminal antecedents is being provided in the counter affidavits filled by the respective respondents-States, as in the present case. The result is that this Court, being the apex court of the country, is being taken for a ride. This Court has shown leniency in the past but we think it is time that such state of affairs is not allowed to continue further.” 5. He also relied in the case of P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement reported in (2019) 9 SCC 24 and he refers to paragraph nos.77 and 78 of the said judgment which are quoted below: “77. After referring to Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre [Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 514] and other judgments and observing that anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances, in Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar [Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar, (2012) 4 SCC 379 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 468] , the Supreme Court held as under: (SCC p. 386, para 19) “19. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be satisfied and further while granting such relief, the court must record the reasons therefor. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty. (See D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokaran [D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokaran, (2007) 4 SCC 434 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 345] , State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain [State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain, (2008) 1 SCC 213 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 176] and Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal [Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal, (2008) 13 SCC 305 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 1] .)” 78. Power under Section 438 CrPC being an extraordinary remedy, has to be exercised sparingly; more so, in cases of economic offences. Economic offences stand as a different class as they affect the economic fabric of the society. In Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain [Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain, (1998) 2 SCC 105 : -5- A.B.A. No. 3986 of 2025 1998 SCC (Cri) 510] , it was held that in economic offences, the accused is not entitled to anticipatory bail.” 6. Relying on the above judgment, Mr. Bharti, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent CBI submits that parameters of anticipatory bail so far as this petitioner is concerned, is different as he is the public servant and he has misappropriated the amount being the Branch Manager of State Bank of India (SBI), and on these grounds, he submits that the prayer for anticipatory bail to the petitioner may kindly be rejected. 7. In view of above submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record. It is an admitted position that along with the petitioner, other accused persons have been also charge sheeted and they are also accomplice in the said crime. Even the charge sheeted person along with the petitioner, being Shashi Suman @ Sashi Suman, Sanjay Kumar Bhandari, Gopal Singh alias Gopal Kumar, Dinesh Das, Md. Shahidullah Mollah @ Md. Shahidullah Molla have been granted anticipatory bail and all those have been granted anticipatory bail considering that this petitioner being Branch Manager has taken the benefits of those persons by way of transferring the amount in their account. The another aspect is that the charge sheet has already been submitted and the petitioner was not arrested in course of the investigation, but, the hard fact, in light of these developments also, cannot be ignored by this Court that the petitioner has suppressed the criminal antecedent of identical nature in -6- A.B.A. No. 3986 of 2025 which he is accused in case of RC No.6 of 2022. This matter was filed on 21.7.2025 and CBI has also filed counter affidavit and the petitioner has not bothered to disclose this aspect even later on also, by way of filing of the supplementary affidavit and the fact has not been disclosed about the criminal antecedent. Even if in the counter affidavit statement of criminal antecedent is not there, it is the bounded duty of the petitioner to disclose the same. In course of the argument made by the learned counsel for the respondent CBI it has been pointed out and in light of observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Munnesh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra) the High Court is also being taken for a ride and to stop this practice, harsh steps are required to be taken. In the aforesaid background and considering the criminal antecedent which has been suppressed by the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner, is hereby, rejected. 8. As such, this petition is dismissed. 9. Pending petition if any also stands disposed of accordingly. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated: 23rd Sept., 2025 SI/