Manoj Kumar vs Central Bureau Of Investigation (Cbi) ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 6041 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Manoj Kumar vs Central Bureau Of Investigation (Cbi) ... on 23 September, 2025

Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

                                                                      2025:JHHC:29567

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                                   -----

A.B.A. No. 3986 of 2025

----

Manoj Kumar, aged about 55 years, son of late Damodar Prasaad Permanent r/o Subodh Palace, Shivpuram, Rukanpura, District Patna, Bihar, presently resident of Mahavir Colony, Road No.8, PO Anishabad, PS Beur Anisabad, District Patna (Bihar) the then posted as Branch Manager, Shikaripara Branch, State Bank of India, Dumka, Jharkhand .... Petitioner

-- Versus --

Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) .... Opposite Party

----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

For the Petitioner :- Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate For the C.B.I. :- Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharti, Advocate

----

3/23.09.2025 Heard Mr.A.K. Kashyap, learned Senior counsel for

petitioner and Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharti, learned counsel for the C.B.I.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection

with Case No.R.C.01(A)/2023(D), for offence registered under section

120B r/w 409 and 420 of the IPC and section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(a) of

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, pending in court of learned Special

Judge, CBI-Cum- Additional Sessions Judge-Ist, Dhanbad.

3. Mr. Kashyap, the learned Senor counsel appearing on behalf of

the petitioner submits that the role of the petitioner in alleged defalcation

of credit and debit in various accounts of the Bank of the different

account holders causing total loss of Rs.2,92,07,276/- along with

enclosures of other charge sheeted persons are made. He further

submits that on the strength of Section 120B of the IPC, the petitioner

has been made accused along with others and other accused persons'

name has come in the charge sheet with regard to allegations made

upon the petitioner and one late Sudhir Bouri. By way of referring the

charge sheet, he then submits that along with this petitioner, there are

other co-accused persons who have been named along with this

petitioner. He then submits that Babi Devi and Shashi Suman @ Sashi

Suman have been granted anticipatory bail in A.B.A. No.1779 of 2025

and A.B.A. No.4820 of 2025, respectively. He next submits that the C.B.I.

has investigated the matter in which the petitioner has fully cooperated

in the investigation and now the C.B.I has submitted the charge sheet.

He also submits that in view of the submission of the charge sheet, the

C.B.I has not arrested the petitioner in course of the investigation and in

light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several

judgments relating to the C.B.I. that has been rightly done. He then

submits that if the custodial requirement is not there, the petitioner may

kindly be granted anticipatory bail.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharti, the learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent C.B.I vehemently opposed

the prayer and submits that the petitioner was posted as Branch Manager

of different Branches of State Bank of India (SBI). By way of referring the

charge sheet, the further submits that the petitioner being the Branch

Manager in connivance with others, along with late Sudhir Bouri illegally

and without mandate has transacted through batch and individual

posting into the accounts of self and his family members thereby

misappropriated the amount. He then submits that name of the

petitioner has come in the main charge sheet as well as the

supplementary charge sheet dated 30.05.2024. He next submits that this

matter relates to economic offence, the petitioner being the public

servant has misappropriated such amount, and in view of that, the

petitioner may not be granted anticipatory bail. Mr. Bharti, the learned

counsel for the CBI further submits that one material fact has been

suppressed by the petitioner that he is involved in identical nature of

case being R.C. Case No.6/2022 and in view of that also, the petitioner

does not deserve anticipatory bail. He refers to the case of Munnesh v.

State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 389 and he

refers to paragraph no.9 and 11 of the said judgment, which are quoted

below:

"9. Be that as it may, since the petitioner has suppressed material facts with regard to his involvement in criminal cases, he is not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail. Even otherwise, the trial has progressed reasonably and hence, no case for releasing the petitioner on bail has been set up.

11. However, before parting, we consider it necessary to dwell on one aspect. Agrowing trend is being noticed of individuals, seeking from this Court the concession of bail or concession of

protection from arrest, not disclosing in the special leave petitions their involvement in other criminal cases. In such cases where involvement is not disclosed, on a prima facie satisfaction that long incarceration without reasonable progress in the trial is invading the right to life of the accused or that the offences for which the FIR has been registered are not too serious, notices are issued and only thereafter, information of criminal antecedents is being provided in the counter affidavits filled by the respective respondents-States, as in the present case. The result is that this Court, being the apex court of the country, is being taken for a ride. This Court has shown leniency in the past but we think it is time that such state of affairs is not allowed to continue further."

5. He also relied in the case of P. Chidambaram v. Directorate

of Enforcement reported in (2019) 9 SCC 24 and he refers to

paragraph nos.77 and 78 of the said judgment which are quoted below:

"77. After referring to Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre [Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 514] and other judgments and observing that anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances, in Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar [Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar, (2012) 4 SCC 379 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 468] , the Supreme Court held as under: (SCC p. 386, para 19) "19. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be satisfied and further while granting such relief, the court must record the reasons therefor.

Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty. (See D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokaran [D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokaran, (2007) 4 SCC 434 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 345] , State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain [State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain, (2008) 1 SCC 213 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 176] and Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal [Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal, (2008) 13 SCC 305 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 1] .)"

78. Power under Section 438 CrPC being an extraordinary remedy, has to be exercised sparingly; more so, in cases of economic offences. Economic offences stand as a different class as they affect the economic fabric of the society. In Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain [Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain, (1998) 2 SCC 105 :

1998 SCC (Cri) 510] , it was held that in economic offences, the accused is not entitled to anticipatory bail."

6. Relying on the above judgment, Mr. Bharti, the learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the respondent CBI submits that parameters of

anticipatory bail so far as this petitioner is concerned, is different as he is

the public servant and he has misappropriated the amount being the

Branch Manager of State Bank of India (SBI), and on these grounds, he

submits that the prayer for anticipatory bail to the petitioner may kindly

be rejected.

7. In view of above submission of the learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on

record. It is an admitted position that along with the petitioner, other

accused persons have been also charge sheeted and they are also

accomplice in the said crime. Even the charge sheeted person along with

the petitioner, being Shashi Suman @ Sashi Suman, Sanjay Kumar

Bhandari, Gopal Singh alias Gopal Kumar, Dinesh Das, Md. Shahidullah

Mollah @ Md. Shahidullah Molla have been granted anticipatory bail and

all those have been granted anticipatory bail considering that this

petitioner being Branch Manager has taken the benefits of those persons

by way of transferring the amount in their account. The another aspect

is that the charge sheet has already been submitted and the petitioner

was not arrested in course of the investigation, but, the hard fact, in light

of these developments also, cannot be ignored by this Court that the

petitioner has suppressed the criminal antecedent of identical nature in

which he is accused in case of RC No.6 of 2022. This matter was filed on

21.7.2025 and CBI has also filed counter affidavit and the petitioner has

not bothered to disclose this aspect even later on also, by way of filing of

the supplementary affidavit and the fact has not been disclosed about

the criminal antecedent. Even if in the counter affidavit statement of

criminal antecedent is not there, it is the bounded duty of the petitioner

to disclose the same. In course of the argument made by the learned

counsel for the respondent CBI it has been pointed out and in light of

observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Munnesh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra) the High Court is also

being taken for a ride and to stop this practice, harsh steps are required

to be taken. In the aforesaid background and considering the criminal

antecedent which has been suppressed by the petitioner, I am not

inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, the prayer for

anticipatory bail of the petitioner, is hereby, rejected.

8. As such, this petition is dismissed.

9. Pending petition if any also stands disposed of accordingly.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated: 23rd Sept., 2025 SI/