Anil Kumwar @ Anil Kumar v. The State Of Bihar Through The Economic Offences Unit Of The Vigilance Department.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.530 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-5 Year-2020 Thana- ECONOMIC OFFENCES, BIHAR District- Patna ====================================================== ANIL KUMWAR @ ANIL KUMAR Son of Late Damodar Kumar @ Damodar Kunwar Resident of Village- Musapur, P.S.- Muffasil, DistrictSamastipur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar through the Economic Offences Unit of the Vigilance Department. Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Abhay Shankar Singh, Advocate For the EOU : Mr.Vishwanath Pd. Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Vijay Anand, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 06-09-2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 13 (2)/ 13(1) (a) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

The F.I.R. has been instituted on the basis of written report of on Shri Ravindra Nath Trivedi, Regional Officer at Regional Office of Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Begusarai. The specific allegation against this petitioner is that he in connivance with other accused persons sanctioned term loan of Rs. 340/- lacs and CC loan of Rs 75/- lacs to one Sanjiv Kumar Agrawal on the basis of forged documents as well as on the basis of documents of disputed land.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.530 of 2022(4) dt.06-09-2022 2/2 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case. It is submitted that loan in question was sanctioned on 28.9.2015 prior to the joining of the petitioner in the Regional office as Chief Manager on 19.11.2015. After sanctioning of loan two audit inspections were conducted and in those audits no irregularities were found by the authorities in sanctioning of loan. It is only when the loan became N.P.A. the so-called enquiry was conducted and FIR was instituted. Learned counsel appearing for the E.O.U. opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the entire loan money was disbursed during the tenure of this petitioner, as such, he cannot escape liability. Irregularities were found in disbursal of loan also.

Considering the nature of accusation and gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) shashi/- U T