Manivannan v. The State Rep By Its,

Orders Reserved on 22.08.2023 Orders Pronounced on RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN.,J.

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 477-A of I.P.C in Crime No.7 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that one Geetha Devi, worked as Deputy Manager, State Bank of India, Vandavasi Branch, had obtained forged records and sanctioned agricultural loans to the unqualified persons. She misused her position and sanctioned the above said loans to the persons who are non eligible for the said loan. After the loan was sanctioned, the said Geetha Devi, raised payout through her I.D. The amount was paid by the petitioner, who is running "Customer Service Centre", thereby an amount of Rs.10,51,000/- was defrauded to the bank. Hence, the case. 1/4

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that he is running a "Customer Service Centre" and what are all the documents given by the customer, he has made and prepared the document and submitted for the bank. He further submits that he is ready to deposit some amount as a conditional of anticipatory bail. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that based upon the complaint given by the Branch Manager of State Bank of India, Vandavasi branch, the case has been registered in the above crime number.

The sum and substance is that, the said first accused/Deputy Manager of State Bank of India has sanctioned 8 loans out of which, 6 persons is a dead persons and two persons are fictitious person and the amount has been sanctioned by him and disbursed through A2 and A2 received the amount and handed over to the loan applicant which is appears to bogus and he is an agent of the first accused. Hence, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5.Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (crl.side) and perused the materials available on record.

6.Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the first accused appears to have sanctioned loan and disbursed the amount through A2 out of the 8 loans, 6 persons are dead persons and two persons are fictitious person and the matter is at preliminary stage. Further, the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit some amount to grant anticipatory bail. However, I find that it is only tip of the iceberg only after investigation, it will know how many loans have been issued in a such a fraudulent manner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. nvi 3/4

RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN.,J.

nvi order in 4/4