IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

B.A. No. 9975 of 2023

------

Sunil Kumar Verma

… Petitioner

Versus

The Union of India through C.B.I. …

Opposite Party

------

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

------

For the Petitioner

: Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate

: Mr. Vishal Kr. Trivedi, Advocate

For the State

: Mr. Anil Kumar, ASGI

: Ms. Chandana Kumari, AC to ASGI

------

Order No.04 Dated- 03.11.2023

Heard the parties.

The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of

bail in connection with R.C. Case No. 01 (S)/2011-AHD-R

instituted under Sections 420,467,468,471,120- B of the Indian Penal

Code, and the charge-sheet submitted under Sections 420, 467, 468,

471, 120B and Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner while functioning as Manager (Credit) of UCO Bank,

Deoghar Branch, willfully did not discharge his official duties in

the matter and did not verify the forged documents submitted for

sanctioning the loan and also did not verify the genuineness of the

documents submitted by the guarantors and did not follow the

KYC (Know Your Customer) norms. It is further submitted that the

petitioner did not carry out pre physical verification of instrument

and machinery of M/s Ganga Bricks, William Town, Deoghar,

Jharkhand resulting in the loan amount of Rs. 1,68,75,000/-

becoming non-performing assets of the bank. It is next submitted

that the co-accused-Aviram Das was responsible for preparing the

report. It is then submitted that the Branch Manager has power to

sanction loan up to Rs.1,50,00,000/- and if the amount is above

1,50,00,000/-, the same will be sanctioned by the Zonal Manager

and the present loan amount is more than Rs.1,50,00,000/- and the

same was sanctioned by Zonal Manager who is informant in the

present case but the Zonal Manager to save his skin has falsely

implicated the petitioner. It is next submitted that the petitioner

was not required to abide by KYC norms. It is next submitted that

the petitioner has been in custody since 07.10.2023 as has been

mentioned in paragraph no. 45 of the bail application. It is also

submitted that the petitioner all along cooperated with the

investigation of the case; hence, CBI did not feel it necessary to

arrest the petitioner during the pendency of the case. It is further

submitted that the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the trial

of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to

bail.

The learned ASGI opposes the prayer for bail.

Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as

discussed above, I am inclined to enlarge the above named

petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be

released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees

Two Lakhs) with two sureties of the like amount each to the

satisfaction of learned A.D.J.-III-cum-Special Judge, CBI, Dhanbad,

in connection with R.C. Case No. 01 (S)/2011-AHD-R with the

condition that the petitioner will cooperate with the trial of the

case.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

Sonu-Gunjan/