2025:JHHC:17013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 7983 of 2024 Kirti Kunal @ Kartik Kunal, S/o Kamleshar Narayan Singh, R/o JK Bhawan, Matwari House, P.O.- Head Post Office, P.S. Sadar, Hazaribagh .... Petitioner(s). Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party(s). …… CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Rishabh Kaushal, Advocate Mr. Sagar Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar, AddI. P.P. For the informant : Mr. Piyush Kr. Roy, Advocate (through VC) Mr. Prabhas Ch. Sinha, Advocate …...... 04/ 25.06.2025: Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. This anticipatory bail application under Sections 482 and 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, has been preferred by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 300 of 2024, for offences under Sections 316(2)/318(2) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The case is presently pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh. 3. Prosecution case is that on September 11, 2024, the informant was told by an accused named Randhir Singh that a shop beside his shop was under bank mortgage and would be auctioned soon. Randhir Singh suggested the informant to speak with the shop owner, who confirmed that he owed the bank Rs.21,59,327/-. The petitioner who is the Bank Manager told the informant to meet Randhir Singh, who then demanded Rs. 7,00,000/- as an office expense to stop the auction. The informant paid Rs. 5,00,000/- in cash. The petitioner gave informant the loan details and told him not to pay the bank directly because the loan account was a Non- Performing Asset (NPA). Instead, the informant was told to send the money to the shop owner Manoj Kumar Jain’s personal savings account. Informant then transferred Rs.21,59,500/- from his mother’s account to that account. Later, Manoj Kumar Jain asked the bank for the mortgage papers and a No Objection Certificate (NOC), but the bank manager demanded another Rs. 10,00,000/- to stop the auction. When the informant didn’t pay more, they told him that the property had already been sold to someone else. It is claimed that many bank officials were involved in this fraudulent scheme. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is completely innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case due to personal grudge and with the intention to harass and humiliate him. He further submits that the petitioner is not at fault and it is the borrower and the informant who committed the criminal offence by fraudulently selling and forcefully taking over a mortgaged property. He further submits that the FIR clearly shows that the petitioner did not commit any offence. He also submits that the informant tricked others into giving him money for a property that was under the bank's control and then illegally occupied it. He further submits that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner and only vague and general claims are there. He further submits that he had no role in the loan process or its enforcement. 5. The learned APP appearing for the state has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. He submits that the petitioner is not entitled to the privilege of anticipatory bail. 6. After hearing the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the submissions made, I find that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner and only vague and general claims are there. The petitioner is a bank official. Admittedly, the property was auction sold as the asset was NPA. The private arrangement was with the defaulter and the proposed purchaser. There was no contract between the Bank and proposed purchaser. Further, admittedly no amount was given to this petitioner. After investigation no prima facie material was found against the petitioner and there was no role of the petitioner in the loan process. Considering the above facts and circumstances and the lack of evidence against the petitioner, I feel that this is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail of the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, this Anticipatory Bail Application stands allowed. The petitioner, above named, is directed to surrender before the learned court below within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and on the event of his surrender or arrest, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh, in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No.300 of 2024, subject to the condition that one of the bailers should be a close relative of the petitioner and other should be a resident of State of Jharkhand, having sufficient landed property in his name or in the name of his ancestors in which he is having share and to that effect, he has to file an affidavit before the Trial Court indicating his share in the property. (ANANDA SEN, J.) R.S./