2025:JHHC:17445 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 7652 of 2024 Nitish, S/o Sri Rabindra Kumar Singh, R/o Bagbera Colony, Road no.5, Block No. 155-2-1, PO Tatanagar, PS Bagbera, District East Singhbhum ….. Petitioner(s). Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2. Satya Prakash, S/o Anjani Kumar Sinha, R/o Bank of India, Anchalik Karyalay, Bistupur, Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum, PO and PS Bistupur, Jharkhand. ….. Opposite Party(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate For the BOI : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Devesh Krishna,(SC Mines-III) ----- 08/01.07.2025: This is an application filed by the petitioner praying for grant of anticipatory bail in terms of sections 482 and 484 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, as the petitioner has been allegedly implicated in connection with Kadma PS Case No. 98 of 2023, for the offences punishable under sections 409, 419, 420, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the Bank of India and the learned counsel for the State. 3. The learned counsel for the State as well as the learned counsel appearing for the Bank of India have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. 4. The allegation is that over draft facility against term deposit were sanctioned to 33 customers without proper verification which caused loss to the tune of 9 crores and odd. The allegation is that the petitioner connived with the Branch Manager of Uliyan Branch who has sanctioned the loan. 5. The learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer and submits that though the petitioner has not sanctioned the loan as he was not the Branch Manager of Uliyan Branch but he had verified some of the accounts and the transactions. He submits that now the petitioner has already been dismissed from service as he was involved in the offence of grave misconduct and procedural and financial irregularities in the Bank. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly from the 2025:JHHC:17445 FIR and also from the arguments of opposite party it appears that the petitioner was not the Branch Manager of Uliyan Branch but his Branch Code was used for which he cannot be blamed as it is the Branch Manager of Uliyan Branch Mr. Dheeraj Kumar Jha who was involved in the entire occurrence and played fraud with this petitioner. 9. Considering the fact that the petitioner was not the Branch Manager of Uliyan Branch where over draft against the term deposit were sanctioned and also the fact that now the petitioner has been dismissed from service, I am inclined to allow the present anticipatory bail application of this petitioner. 10. Accordingly, the petitioner, above named, is directed to surrender before the court below within three weeks from today and in the event of his surrender/arrest the learned court below is directed to enlarge him on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur, in connection with Kadma PS Case No. 98 of 2023, subject to the condition that one of the bailers should be close relative of the petitioner and other should be a resident of State of Jharkhand, having sufficient landed property in his/her name or in the name of his/her ancestors in which he/she is having share and to that effect, he/she has to file an affidavit before the learned trial court indicating his/her share in the property, further the petitioner will appear before the Investigating Officer once in fifteen days and cooperate with the trial till submission of charge sheet. (ANANDA SEN, J. ) KNR/