Patna High Court
Bipin Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 13 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 34514 of 2020
Arising Out of PS Case No.-60 Year-2019 Thana- LAKHISARAI District- Lakhisarai
======================================================
Bipin Kumar, aged about 59 years, Male son of Chunchun Singh, Resident of
Village- Lodiya, PS Lakhisarai, District- Lakhisarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Binod Murari Mishra, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 13-07-2021
The matter has been heard via video conferencing.
2. Heard Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, learned senior
counsel along with Mr. Binod Murari Mishra, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the
State.
3. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with
Lakhisarai PS Case No. 60 of 2019 dated 21.01.2019, instituted
under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. The allegation against the petitioner is that he in the
capacity of being the Branch Manager of Munger Jamui Central
Co-operative Bank Limited at the relevant point of time had given
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34514 of 2020 dt.13-07-2021
loan without making proper KYC and no original documents were
taken of the mortgaged property at the time of giving loan and
only photo copy of the same was kept and further that in a
mechanical manner ignoring the terms and conditions of the Bank,
he had given loan to the interested persons resulting in loss to the
Bank as the accounts were never satisfied.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he
had done his job properly and many of the loanees have also
returned the money. It was submitted that out of 22 persons, 12
persons have liquidated the loan and with regard to others also,
they have undertaken to do so within a fixed period of time. In this
connection, learned counsel drew the attention of the Court to the
chart given by the Branch Manager to the Investigating Officer of
the case dated 07.05.2021. Learned counsel further submitted that
the allegations are misplaced and erroneous and further that even
the basis of the FIR, which is the inquiry report, no opportunity
was given to the petitioner to be the part of the inquiry. Learned
counsel submitted that non-recovery of loan and declaration of
NPA does not constitute any offence and the Branch Manager
cannot be held responsible.
6. Learned APP submitted that the Court had called for a
report from the Superintendent of Police, Lakhisarai who has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34514 of 2020 dt.13-07-2021
reported that the Bank has given details of the loanees but all of
them cannot be verified due to lock-down as the persons could not
be located. However, it has been stated that 12 persons have
liquidated the loan. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner
cannot take the plea that he had identified the borrowers properly
for the reason that while sanctioning the loan amount, the
collaterals were not properly taken, especially the original
documents of the mortgaged property. It was submitted that had
the same been done, the said properties could have been auctioned
and recovery made but in the absence of the same, the Bank is
now left with having to notice the guarantors and that too, it is
uncertain whether the guarantors are real and also whether they
are in a position to pay. It was submitted that all this has been
done without following the procedure prescribed and taking due
precaution, as is required of a Branch Manager at the time of
sanctioning of loan. Learned counsel submitted that such matters
involving public money needs to be taken seriously note of and in
the present case, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of
anticipatory bail. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is
also accused in three other cases including those under Sections
302, 420, 409 as well as 504/506 of the Indian Penal Code among
other sections of the years 2008, 2015 and 2016.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34514 of 2020 dt.13-07-2021
7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the
case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court
is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.
9. Interim protection given to the petitioner under order
dated 13.04.2021, stands vacated.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)
P. Kumar
AFR/NAFR
U
T
