Manivannan v. The State Rep By Its,

Crl.O.P.No.22563 of 2023 C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

The petitioner/A1, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 477-A of IPC in Crime No.7 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.This is the second application for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner and the earlier application had been dismissed by this Court on 29.08.2023 in Crl.O.P.No.18937 of 2023.

3.The case of the prosecution is that one Geetha Devi, who worked as Deputy Manager, State Bank of India, Vandavasi Branch, had obtained forged records and sanctioned agricultural loans to unqualified persons. She misused her position and sanctioned the above said loans to persons who were not eligible for the said loan. After the loan was sanctioned, the said Geetha Devi, raised a payment through her I.D. The amount was paid by the petitioner, who is running "Customer Service Centre" and thereby an amount of Rs.10,51,000/- was defrauded to the Bank. Hence the case.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner initially stated that the respondent were called upon to file counter and blamed the respondent for not filing the counter.

5.But however the counter of the respondent had been filed and after receiving a copy, the learned counsel then sought time. The request for grant of time is rejected.

1/3

6.On the side of the respondent, it is stated that the said first accused/Deputy Manager of State Bank of India has sanctioned 8 loans out of which, 6 persons were dead persons and two persons were fictitious persons and the amount has been sanctioned by her and disbursed through A2. A2 received the amounts. Hence, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7.Even in the status report filed by the respondent, it had been stated that the petitioner would escape from the clutches of law and will tamper the evidence and threaten the witnesses. It is also significant to note that Al is still absconding. She had been suspended but she had been evading arrest.

8.In view of that particular fact, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. It is made clear that any further application of the petitioner will be considered only when A1 either surrenders or is taken into custody by the respondent or files application seeking anticipatory bail. As a employee of the State Bank of India, she cannot evade judicial process.

9.Hence, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 23.11.2023 vkr 2/3

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

vkr Crl.O.P.No.22563 of 2023 23.11.2023 3/3