2025:JHHC:20135 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 6622 of 2024 ---- Daya Shankar Prasad S/o Sri Rajendra Prasad aged about- 47 years, Resident of J.K. Jewellers Near Pushpanjali Puja Bhandar, Steel Gate, P.O. CCWO, P.S.-Saraidhela, Dist- Dhanbad (Jharkhand). … … Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.The Senior Branch Manager, Saraidhela Branch, Bank of India, P.O. & P.S.- Saraidhela, Dist- Dhanbad. … … Opposite Parties ---- WITH A.B.A. No. 7308 of 2024 ---- Kamal Krishna @ Kamal Krishan, aged about 36 years,son of Shyam Nandan Prasad, resident of village Gosaidih, Bank Colony, P.O. K.G. Ashram, P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand. … … Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2. Bank of India, Sariadhela, P.O. & P.S.- Saraidhela, Dist- Dhanbad, Jharkhand … … Opposite Parties WITH A.B.A. No. 1908 of 2025 ---- Pradeep Kumar @ Pradip Kumar Verma, aged about 53 years, son of Murari Lal Verma, resident of Rani Bazar, P.O. Katras, P.S. Katras, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party ---- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ---- For the Petitioners : Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Sagar Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Devesh Krishana, S.C. Mines-III Mr. Shahabuddin, SC VII Mr. Zeeshan Ahmad Khan, AC to SC VII For the Opp. Party No.2 : Mr. Debopriya Pal, Advocate Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate Mr. Navneet Kumar Dhan, Advocate ---- 11/ 23.07.2025 These anticipatory bail applications under Sections 482 and 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, have been preferred by the petitioners apprehending their arrest in connection with Saraidhela P.S. Case No. 97 of 2024, registered for offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The case 2025:JHHC:20135 -: 2 :- is presently pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad. 2. As per the First Information Report lodged by the informant, Vishwa Pratap Singh, who is the Manager of Bank of India, Saraidhela Branch, it is alleged that fake and duplicate gold was used by 28 borrowers to get loans from the bank, resulting in a major fraud. When these borrowers failed to repay the loans, the bank issued recovery and auction notices, but they didn’t respond. Following bank procedures, a committee was formed to recheck the pledged gold before auction. After recheck it was found that the gold was fake and worthless. The informant then reported the matter alleging that forgery was committed by Lokesh Kumar Srivastava, a former bank valuer, along with jewellers Kamal Krishna, Daya Shankar Prasad, and Pradeep Kumar, who had assessed the jewellery when the loans were approved. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent, they have committed no offence, and have been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel further submitted that the jewellery appraised by the petitioners was not the same as what was actually pledged to the bank. Fake jewellery was mortgaged instead. He further contended that the petitioners had no role in the custody of the pledged ornaments. He further argued that forgery has been done by bank officers, and the petitioners are being made a scapegoat. It has been submitted that none of the bank officials have been made accused in this case. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the state and the counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.2 vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners for grant of anticipatory bail. They submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to the privilege of anticipatory bail. They further contended that the petitioners acted together to cheat the bank causing financial loss to the bank and misusing public money for personal gain. They also contended that the petitioners were involved in defrauding a financial institution and misappropriation of the public money deposited in the Bank for their wrongful gain. In this case extensive investigation is necessary. Learned counsel submit that it is also necessary to unearth the conspiracy as huge conspiracy has been hatched by several persons including these petitioners by submitting wrong valuation reports. 5. I have gone through the available records including the Case Diary. I find that all the petitioners are valuers. They have valued the gold and 2025:JHHC:20135 -: 3 :- submitted reports, based on which loans were sanctioned. Later on when there was default, it was found that all the ornaments were fake and not of gold against which loans were granted. The informant in his reinstatement at paragraph 2 of the Case Diary has stated that when the packet of 1 gold loan holder Govind Chandra was opened in presence of Praveen Kumar Verma and panel advocate of bank and two independent witnesses, it was found to be fake. He also said that a committee was formed to assess the valuation of golds in which valuer Pradeep Kumar Verma (petitioner in A.B.A. No.1908 of 2025) was also the member. He also stated that these petitioners were valuers. It has also come in the Case Diary that in presence of committee member, it was found that the jewellery was fake and it was also of less weight than mentioned. At paragraph 99 of the case diary it has come that assessment of papers of one gold loan holder was found to be signed by valuer but not by the applicant and the Branch Manager. At paragraph 100, it has come that the assessment of papers of one gold loan holder was found to be signed by Valuer Pradeep Kumar Verma, but details of jeweler is not mentioned. In some of the documents it was found that name of the valuer was also not mentioned. It is a case where the bank has been cheated and huge amount of gold loan has been disbursed against fake deposits of ornaments, which were not of gold, though the valuer mentioned that the ornaments were gold ornaments. Admittedly, loan was disbursed on valuation report. Petitioners, admittedly, valued the ornaments and on their reports, loans were disbursed. This is a huge conspiracy, which requires extensive investigation, and if necessary custodial interrogation also. 6. Considering all these facts, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The prayer of the petitioners, abovenamed, for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, rejected. 7. These anticipatory bail applications are, accordingly, dismissed. (Ananda Sen, J.) Kumar/Cp-03