The main legal point established is that the petitioner's adherence to banking policies and due diligence in follow-up actions, along with the approval of the recommendation by the sanctioning authority, diluted the petitioner's involvement in the alleged offenses.

Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.

Heard Mr. S. Piprawall, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. K.P. Deo, learned APP for the CBI.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with R.C. Case No. 4(A)/2013(D) registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 420, 468 and 471 of the IPC read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3. An FIR was instituted in which it was alleged that the petitioner being the then Chief Manager-cum-Branch Manager of Syndicate Bank, Dhanbad has recommended the proposal of M/s. Leonis Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. without exercising due diligence/in depth credit appraisals of the said project/pre-sanction inspection/not obtaining required Bank statement and search report for study of company profile/without mentioning previous sanction or disbursement of housing loans to co-accused persons and in pursuance thereof and in violation of the terms and conditions of the sanction to M/s. Leonis Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. released proceeds of term loan of total Rs. 176 lacs without conducting inspection of the unit before releasing the term loan and without verifying the fact of raising long terms funds of Rs. 134.87 lacs from the Company’s Bank Account statement and also did not ensure he terms and conditions of the sanction by the Directors of the Company. Further allegation has been made that the petitioner did not get the project report prepared by the Chartered Accountant approved by technically competent person and the unit before realising the term loan the unit was neither inspected not it was verified as to whether the term loan was properly utilised by the unit. After conducting investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner and the other accused persons.

4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner at the relevant point of time was the Chief Manager and Branch Head of Syndicate Bank, Dhanbad Branch and it has been submitted that the petitioner was merely the recommending authority and it was the regional authority who was the sanctioning authority for sanction of the term loan granted to the firm and as per the letter dated 25.5.2007 issued by the regional office at Patna it has been categorically stated that the pre-release and post-release terms of sanction has duly been complied with. Learned counsel further submits that proposal was processed and recommendation was also made by the petitioner for sanction of the loan to M/s. Leonis Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner is competent to sanction term loan upto a limit of Rs. 25 lacs, but since the request for term loan exceeded the sanctioning capacity of the petitioner, the same was recommended by the petitioner which was subsequently sanctioned by the regional office. It has also been submitted that the unit which was sanctioned the term loan was situated at Valsad in the State of Gujarat and the petitioner had also made inspection of the unit and in fact the Branch Office of Syndicate bank at Valsad has also intimated the petitioner regarding the inspections made by them. Learned counsel has also referred to the policy guidelines of 22.2.2011 issued by the General Manager (P) Syndicate Bank in which the accountability and the reasons for loan failure has been delineated with respect to the authorising authority, recommending authority and the sanctioning authority. It has been submitted that the sanctioning authority has been made responsible for adhering to the norms prescribed under the policy of the Bank as well as the RBI, Government and other regulatory bodies. Learned counsel has further submitted that although the loan was ultimately sanctioned by the Regional Office, Patna being the sanctioning authority, but surprisingly none of the said officials has been made accused in the present case whereas the petitioner has been roped in only because of the fact that he was