Patna High Court – Orders
Dharmendra Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 23 April, 2026
Author: Purnendu Singh
Bench: Purnendu Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35632 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-252 Year-2024 Thana- DURAULI District- Siwan
======================================================
Dharmendra Kumar Singh S/o Late Ramashankar Singh @ Late
Ramashanker Singh Resident of Village- Lohgajar, P.S.- Asaw, Distt.- Siwan
Presently residing at Vill.- Mairwa Dham, P.S.- Mairwa, Distt.- Siwan
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar
2. The Regional Manager, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, Regional Office Siwan
Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Binod Singh, Advocate
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rajendra Nath Jha, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
7 23-04-2026
Heard Mr. Ram Binod Singh, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner; Mr. Arvind Kumar,
learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 and Mr. Rajendra Nath Jha,
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection
with Darauli P.S. Case No. 252 of 2024 registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 409 and 420/34 of the Indian
Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Darauli P.S.
Case No. 252 of 2024 was instituted on 14.08.2024 on the basis
of a typed written report submitted by Satyam Shivam, Branch
Manager, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, Kanhauli Branch-2, Siwan.
It is alleged that pursuant to authorization granted by the bank
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35632 of 2025(7) dt.23-04-2026
2/28
management vide Letter No. RO/Siwa/OPR/2024-25/139 dated
13.08.2024, the informant lodged the FIR against the petitioner,
namely Dharmendra Kumar Singh, and co-accused Dilip Kumar
alleging embezzlement of bank funds amounting to Rs.
47,64,316/- during the period 2013-2014 while they were posted
as Office Assistant and Branch Manager respectively at
Kanhauli Branch-2. It is further alleged that when certain
customers, namely Satyaveer Yadav and Usha Kumari,
approached the bank for withdrawal of their deposited money,
an inquiry revealed that the accused persons had allegedly
withdrawn the customers’ deposits from various accounts on the
basis of forged and fake certificates. On the basis of the said
allegations, the FIR was registered under Sections 409 and
420/34 of the IPC against the petitioner and the co-accused
persons.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the
present case on the basis of vague and omnibus allegations.
Petitions has taken defence that at the relevant time, he was
posted as an Office Assistant in Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank,
Kanhauli Branch-2, and his role was merely that of a “Maker” in
the banking process, whereas, the transactions were required to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35632 of 2025(7) dt.23-04-2026
3/28
be verified and approved by higher officials before any payment
could be made to the customers. He further submitted that the
petitioner was not the sole authority responsible for
disbursement of money and no specific overt act has been
attributed to him in the FIR. Learned counsel further submitted
that the alleged occurrence pertains to the years 2013-2014,
whereas, the FIR was instituted on 14.08.2024 after an
unexplained delay of about ten years. During the entire period,
regular internal audits of the bank were conducted and no
irregularity or embezzlement was ever detected against the
petitioner.
5. Learned counsel further submitted that the bank has
already initiated a departmental proceeding against the
petitioner and issued a show cause notice, to which the
petitioner duly responded seeking details regarding the “makers”
and “checkers” involved in the alleged transactions, but no such
information was supplied by the bank authorities. Learned
counsel also referred to Clause 07(xii) of the Uttar Bihar
Gramin Bank Accountability Policy, 2014, which provides that
no accountability shall be fixed for any lapse not pointed out in
two successive audit reports or after four years from the date of
occurrence of the alleged lapse. It has been contended that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35632 of 2025(7) dt.23-04-2026
4/28
present criminal prosecution, initiated after a lapse of about ten
years, is contrary to the 2014 policy. He lastly submitted that the
petitioner is a permanent employee, has deep roots in society, is
not likely to abscond, and is ready to cooperate with the
investigation, as well as, abide by any condition imposed by the
Court, and therefore he deserves the privilege of anticipatory
bail.
6. Based on the above argument and the defence taken
in bail application on behalf of the petitioner, which has been
controverted on behalf of the Bihar Gramin Bank, which I find
appropriate to reproduce the averments made in the counter
affidavit, inter alia is as under:
“I, Satyan Shivam, aged about 35 years, Son of
Shri Raj Shivam, R/o House No. 1350, Ward No. 23, Near
Nehru Yuva Kendra, Belbanwa, Motihari, East Champaran
– 845401 do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows:-
1. That at present I am posted as Branch
Manager, BO:- Kanhauli 2, Bihar Gramin Bank and as
such am well acquainted with the facts and circumstances
of the case.
2. That I have gone through the contents of the
anticipatory bail application which I have fully understood.
3. That I have been duly authorized to swear the
present counter affidavit on behalf of the Bank.
4. The application has been filed for
anticipatory bail in Darauli P.S Case No. 252 of 2024
registered under Section 409, 420/34 of IPC on typed
complaine filed by Shri Satyam Shivam, Branch Manager
Brand Office Kanauli 2, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank for fraud
committed by the petitioner and co-accused Shri Dilip
Kumar the then Branch Manager to the tune of amount Rs.
47,64,316/-.
5. That beside parawise reply, the brief modul
operandi of the fraud is felt necessary to place before the
Hon’ble Court for justice.
6. A request was received from customer Shri.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35632 of 2025(7) dt.23-04-2026
5/28Satyaveer Yadav having Saving A/c No.
-1006631010000792 on 16.10.2023 regarding closer of his
FD A/C opened under MMDC (Money Multiplier Deposit
Certificate) 1006631230002777 and credit of the closer
proceed in his saving account. Branch Manager, Kanhauli
vide letter BO/K-2/2023-24/223 dated 17.10.2023 reported
to Regional Office that the MMDC (Account no-
1006631230002777) is not opened in CBS but a forged
MMDC was issued to the customer. MMDC submitted by
the customer bears the signature of the then Branch
Manager of Shapur Nautan Branch who is co-accused in
present case along with the Branch seal. An another
complaint was received from customer Shri. Satyaveer
Yadav Saving A/c-1006631010000792 by Branch, regarding
unauthorized debit of Rs. 5,00,000/- from his saving
account. Branch Manager, Kanhauli vide letter no. 80/K-
2/2023-24/229 dated 16.11.2023 reported the same to
Regional Office, Siwan. On dated 17.10.2023, another
request from Smt. Usha Kumari was received for payment
of MMDC A/c no-1006631230000478. On receipt of
aforesaid complaints an internal enquiry was conducted
wherein it came to light that “Fake Fixed deposit certificate
was issued to customers. MMDC accounts were neither
opened in CBS nor the amount of customers deposited in
the MMDC account, in one of the instance the saving
account of the customer was debited severally without
mandate of customer and amount was transferred to the
account of a different customers.” (emphasis supplied)
Amount of Rs. 50000 (Fifty thousand only), Rs.
50000 (Fifty thousand only), Rs. 300000 (Three lakh only)
and Rs. 200000 (Two lakh only, were debited from the
customer’s saving account on different dates by forging the
signature of the customer and it was also not mentioned on
the passbook (old manual passbook).
The customer had deposited Rs. 15,00,000 in
his saving account on 14.02.2014 but the said amount was
not credited in his saving account, however, as per the old
passbook (Manual passbook) entry of Rs. 15,00,000 shown
in the passbook. Voucher is not available for the transaction
and the transaction is not mentioned in the cash register of
the branch.
Fake FD certificate of Rs. 21,00,000/- was
issued to customer. A debit entry of Rs. 21,00,000/- (Twenty
one lakh) is shown in the old passbook (Manual passbook).
As per the customer, when FD matured and customer
contacted the petitioner for renewal, who was transferred to
Sahpur nautan branch by that time the petitioner received
the original certificate and issued another forged FD
certificate no. 027182 pertaining to Sahpur Nautan branch
as the serial no of security item is in record of Sahpur
nautan branch, with account no. 1006631230002777 of
face value Rs. 34,02,499/- (Thirty four lakh two thousand
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35632 of 2025(7) dt.23-04-2026
6/28
four hundred ninety nine) having maturity value Rs.
37,64,655/- and due on 08/09/2021. Voucher and FD
account opening form was not found in the branch.
When the due date approached, the petitioner
(the then BM, Sahpur Nautan) personally contacted the
customer and renewed the FD with a new date 23/03/2023
having maturity value of Rs. 40,64,310/- (Forty lakh sixty
four thousand three hundred and ten). When customer Shri.
Satyaveer Yadav approached the petitioner for premature
closure of FD in November 2022 so that he could pay for
his sons’ admission fee, the petitioner convinced him not to
liquidate the FD and issued a fake BANK GUARANTEE
consisting letter no. kanhauli 2/2022-23/34 dated
28/11/2022. whereas in 2022 the petitioner was transferred
from Kanhauli Branch and was working as BM in Sisai
Bazar, Gopalganj. Fraudulent transfer transaction of Rs.
5,00,000/- from the saving account 100663101000792 of
Shri. Satyaveer yadav and Smt. Kanchan Devi.
The amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- was transferred
from the saving account of Shri. Satyaveer Yadav without
his consent to Smt. Pramila Devi’s Accounton 15.02.2014.
Voucher of this transaction is also not available in the
branch.
Customer (Shri. Satyaveer Yadav) has submitted
a complaint regarding this unauthorized transaction from
his account. Fraudulent transaction of Rs. 100000 for
creation of fake FD of Usha Devi MMDC having certificate
no. 337599 was given to Usha kumari with account no
1006631230000478. The certificate belongs to Kanhauli 2
branch and account no. mentioned on certificate is fake no
such account exists in CBS. Fake FD certificate is issued.
FD account also does not exist in the Finacle. Bank’s
security item (FD certificate) was misused to defraud
customer as FD account was not opened and fake FD
certificate was issued to the customer.
The account numbers mentioned in both FD
certificates are fake. KYC records of Smt. Usha Kumari is
not available in Branch.
7. That the custodian of the FD certificates no.
3375501 to 337600 and other security forms were in joint
custody of then B.M Shri Dilip Kumar and the petitioner.
8. That the petitioner was habitual of
mischievous act which is clear from that when he was
posted at Sahpur Nautan Branch from 07.10.2014 to
17.08.2021 as Branch Manager at Branch Office Shahpur
Nautan and continued the same fraudulent modus operandi
of issuing fake MMDC certificate to the customer by
grabbing their hard eared money while he was posted at
Branch Office Sisai from 17.08.2021 till his suspension.
9. The Branch Manager, B.O Sahpur Nautan
received complain from two customers who had given
application to open FD account in the branch but Fake FD
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35632 of 2025(7) dt.23-04-2026
7/28
certificates were issued to the customers by the then branch
manager Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Singh i.e. the petitioner.
Enquiry was conducted and on recommendation of
Regional Office, Siwan fraud of Rs.11,00,000/-(Eleven
lakhs only) was declared on 18.11.2023 by the competent
committee at Head Office.
10. That After the declaration of the aforesaid
fraud committed by the petitioner a flood of complaints
were received at BO Sahpur Nautan with same modus
operandi and thus again an internal investigation was set
up wherein additional fraud amount of Rs. 96,96,175.77/-
has been quantified till date.
In the aforesaid table reveals the petitioner’s
user ID DK22194 was used in the fraudulent transaction in
CBS for making entry to the amount of Rs. 45,56,000/-
posted for amount Rs. 73,36,000/- and verified for amount
Rs. 27,80,000/-. (emphasis supplied)
As above, all transactions were processed to
defraud the customers by issuing fake FD certificates for
his personal gain by violating banking norms.
The same modus operandi was adopted in the
fraud amount of Rs. 34,35,274/- while the petitioner was
posted at B.O Sasai for which separate FIR has been
lodged bearing Bhore P.S Case No. 175/2023.
That after observing the involvement of the
petitioner in such huge amount of embezzlement in various
branch and fraud committed for at a very sophisticated
manner that was not easy to detect as the amount involved
in fraud was only to came in light when the customers
approached the branches with their fake MMDC for
payment and thus the petitioner was successful in putting
curtain over his misdeed for such a long time. The Court of
the XI, Addl. Session Judge, District Gopalganj (Bihar)
rejected the Bail application of the petitioner in ABP No.
1159 of 2023 in Bhore P.S Case No. 175/2023 registered u/s
420,406, 467, 468, 471 of IPC for fraud committed by the
petitioner while his posting at B.O Sasai and the court of
the 1, Add. Session Judge-cum-spl judge rejected the Bail
application of the petitioner in Nautan P.S Case No.
225/2023 u/s 406, 409, 467,468/34 of IPC for fraud
committed while his posting at Sahpur Nautan and the
court of Principal Session Judge, Siwan rejected the
anticipatory bail in Darauti P.S Case No. 252/2024 registed
under section 409 & 420 of IPC for fraud committed at
Kandauli 2 Branch.
11. That the petitioner has not approached that
Hon’ble Court with clean hand has suppressed the complete
backdrop of the matter and only disclosed the embezzlement
of B.O Kandauli 2, which is not accepted by a bank
employee wherein the business of the Bank is of trust and
the petitioner has breached the trust of the customers which
has caused reputational as well as financial loss to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35632 of 2025(7) dt.23-04-2026
8/28
Bank.
Para Wise Reply:
12. That the content of para 1 of the Petition
under reply is formal in nature but wrong relief prayer and
highly objectionable and hence denied
13. That the content of para 2 of the Petition
under reply is formal in nature.
14. That the content of para 3 of the Petition
under reply is formal in nature. However, an anticipatory
bail petition was moved in Nautan P.S. case no. 225 of 2023
vide Cr. Misc. no. 46681 of 2024 which was already
dismissed by this Hon’ble Court on 02-12-2024 much prior
to the filing of the present petition and petitioner did not
disclose this fact.
15. That the content of para 4 of the Petition
under reply is matter of fact.
16. That the content of para 5 of the Petition
under reply is wrong and highly objectionable and hence
denied.
17. That the content of para 6 of the Petition
under reply is wrong and highly objectionable and hence
denied.
18. That the content of para 7 of the Petition
under reply is wrong and highly objectionable and hence
denied but part of the para is matter of record. It is
submitted that as per Banking norms any FDR presented by
self or bearer or any authorized person for encashment of
the same then a bank official (Maker) verify the
genuineness of the FDR and make a queue then the senior
bank official (Checker) check the genuineness and
release/order for payment. However, in the present case
both the maker and checker are accused.
19. That the content of para 8 of the Petition
under reply is matter of record.
20. That the statement made in the para 9 of the
bail petition is irrelevant and misleading. It is stated that
the modus operandi has been discussed herein above.
Further, substantial amount was embezzled by the petitioner
without the amount taken into account under Bank’s
book/CBS system where the question of maker and checker
does not arise. It is further pertinent to mention here that no
receiving or mode of delivery of letter dated 22.09.2024
was furnished by the petitioner upon which the desire
information to petitioner could be provided however the
complete fraudulent transaction trails with transaction ID
of maker and checker have been furnished in the foregoing
paragraph.
21. That the statement made in para 10 & 11 of
the bail application is admitted to the extent born out of the
record and correctness of the rest are hereby denied. As far
as internal audit is concerned it is to be submitted that
regular internal audit is not a special investigation and is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35632 of 2025(7) dt.23-04-2026
9/28
carried out ranging from three to ten days in branch in
which it might be possible that such irregularity may not
come in the knowledge of the auditors.
22. That the statement made in para 12 of the
bail application it is stated that the same is misleading and
the same account staff accountability annexed at Annexure
P4 of the bail petition wherein under clause 7 (XII) itself
that this time limit will not apply to the cases of (i) Fraud
(ii) Other Criminal Offenses (iii) Cases where malafide are
inferable. It is further pertinent to mention here that the
objective of the staff accountability policy is to protect the
bonafide actions/decisions taken by the staff in the interest
of the Bank and not to protect the mischievous done by the
persons like the petitioner who being a custodian of public
money committed criminal breach of trust for his personal
gain and embezzled a huge amount of hard earned public
money to the tune of Rs. 1,89,95,765.77/-. Further, it is
relevant to mention here that in an another similar matter
pertaining to Satyam Sinha Vs. The State of Bihar bearing
Cr. Misc. No. 67533 of 2023 the co-ordinate bench of this
Hon’ble High Court, Patna while rejecting the bail
application of the petitioner vide Order dated 20.08.2025
has observed under para 24, 25 & 26 as follows:-
“24. The offence of the present kind falls within
the category of socio economic offences and has been
termed as white collar crimes which shakes public trust in
the financial institutions as rightly been held by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat verus
Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal (1987) 2 SCC 364 in which the
Supreme Court has observed that these offences are
committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with
an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to
the community. It is a well settled principle of law that
anticipatory bail is not to be granted . as a matter of rule; it
is an extraordinary remedy to be resorted to only when the
court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exit. The
parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in serious offences
must be strictly satisfied. Such relief can be granted only
where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant
has been falsely implicated.
25. In cases involving public money and
financial institutions like in the present case of Dakshin
Bihar Gramin Bank where public confidence is paramount
in such matters larger societal interest is at stake. There is
clear money trail in the present case as revealed in the
enquiry report as well as Quick Study report of NABARD
which goes on to suggest that the petitioner not only
orchestrated and played an active role in this scam but also
directly benefited from it. The money trail, tracing
substantial funds to the petitioner’s own accounts and to
those of his immediate family members suggests that he was
the sole beneficiary of the alleged scam. Economic offences
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35632 of 2025(7) dt.23-04-2026
10/28have serious repercussion on the development of the
country as a whole eroding public confidence in the
financial institutions and undermining the integrity of
economic transactions. The petitioner is not entitled for
parity on the basis of the order passed by Co-ordinate
Bench in Cr. Misc. No. 17767 of 2024 arising out of
Kharagpur P.S. Case No. 673 / 2023 on the ground that
modus operandi of the scam / defalcation of Rs.
10,05,837.35/- was not brought to the notice of the Co-
ordinate Bench by the Bank during the course of hearing of
the case. (emphasis supplied)
26. In the case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy
versus CBI reported in (2013) 7 SCC 439 the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has observed that economic offences
constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a
different approach in the matter of bail. The economic
offences having deep rooted conspiracies and involving
huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and
considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the
country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the
financial health of the country. (emphasis supplied)
23. That the content of para 13 of the Petition
under reply is wrong and highly objectionable and hence
denied. It is submitted that petitioner is habitual offender
and there are several cases lodged against him for the
similar type of offence/fraud. It is every chance that the
petitioner may abscond or temper the witnesses in case he
may be granted anticipatory bail. It is further submitted
that after consideration of the all consequences, this
Hon’ble Court has already rejected the Anticipatory Bail
Petition of the petitioner herein in similar nature of cases as
mentioned above.
24. That the content of para 14 of the Petition
under reply is wrong and highly objectionable prayer and
hence denied
25. That the content of para 15 of the Petition
under reply is matter of record.” (emphasis supplied)
7. The petitioner has filed rejoinder to the counter
affidavit, which inter alia is reproduced hereinafter:
I, Priyanka Kumari, Female, aged about 41
years, Wife of Dharmendra Kumar Singh So Late
Ramashankar Singh @ Late Ramashanker Singh R/o
village – Lohgajar, Police Station – Asaw, District – Siwan,
Presently Residing at 2 village – Mairwa Dham, Police
Station – Mairwa, District -Siwan, do hereby solemnly
affirm and state as follows:
1. That I am the wife of the petitioner and as
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35632 of 2025(7) dt.23-04-2026
11/28such I am well acquainted with the facts and circumstances
of the case.
2. That the contents of the Counter Affidavit
under reply have been read over and explained to me in
Hindi and I have understood the same.
3. That the petitioner is filing a consolidated
rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed by the Uttar Bihar
Gramin Bank.
4. That in the counter affidavit it has been
shown that Sri Satyaveer Yadav has submitted request for
closure of his FD Account opened under Money Multiplier
Deposit Certificate (MMDC) No. 1006631230002777. It is
further stated in the counter affidavit that the said MMDC
Account is not opened in CBS but is a forged MMDC
Account issued to Satyaveer Yadav. However, it has been
learned by the petitioner that the Bank has paid Rs. 42.64
Lakhs on 06.01.2025 in the savings account no.
1006631010000792 of Satyaveer Yadav, being the maturity
value of MMDC FD Account, which is being claimed by the
bank to be a forged one. It is highly surprising that the bank
is claiming the account to be forged before this Hon’ble
Court and at the same time has paid maturity amount to
Satyaveer Yadav. (emphasis supplied)
5. That it is further submitted that Sri Satyaveer
Yadav and Smt. Usha Kumari who are being shown as
victims by the bank have not filed any case with the police
or court alleging embezzlement by the petitioner.
6. That it is apparent from the contents of
counter affidavit under reply that only vague allegations
have been levelled against the petitioner.
7. That the petitioner was posted as Clerk at
Branch Office Kanahauli 2 of Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank
from June 2011 to September 2014 and as per norms the
role of the Office Assistant in the Bank as a Maker and only
after verification by the Higher Officials he pays the said
amount to the customers. As such the petitioner is not the
sole authority to pay the amounts to any customers. After
transfer of the petitioner there were successive audit
conducted every year by the internal auditor and at the end
of the year the aforesaid internal audit was closed,
However, nothing transpired which could even remotely
connect the petitioner with the offence. As such no
irregularity regarding the alleged embezzled amount of Rs.
47,64,316 /- has been found by the internal auditor during
the audit. At the time of transfer, the petitioner has handed
over all the bank properties to the successor and there is no
complain that the petitioner has not given charge of any
bank property. (emphasis supplied)
8. That it is humbly reiterated that Clause 07
(xit) of the Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank accountability policy
2014, says that “No accountability will be fixed for any
lapse, which has not been pointed out in the two successive
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35632 of 2025(7) dt.23-04-2026
12/28
audit reports or 4 years from the date of the event(i.e.
occurrence of lapse) whichever is later. (Annexure P- 4 of
the Bail Petition).
9. That for the same allegations the petitioner is
also facing departmental proceedings initiated vide show
cause notice dated 19.08.2024 (Annexure P – 2 to the main
application). The department is not fairly treating the
petitioner in the departmental proceeding and the petitioner
has requested for documents and information of the makers
and checkers of the alleged embezzled amount of
Rs.47,64,316, but till date the information has not been
provided to the petitioner by the respondent bank and this is
causing prejudice to the petitioner in the Criminal as well
as Departmental proceedings.
10. That the petitioner is also bringing on
record the order dated 04.03.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No.
8445 of 2024 passed in Bhore P.S. Case No. 175 of 2023
registered under sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 of the
IPC, in which the Hon’ ble Patna High Court has been
pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
11. That the anticipatory bail prayer of the
petitioner in Nautan P.S. Case No. 225 of 2023 registered
under section 406, 409, 420, 467, 468/34 of IPC is pending
before Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Criminal) Diary
No. 45482 of 2025 2025, in which the Hon’ble Supreme
Court vide order dated 13.10.2025 has been pleased to
issue notice and grant ad interim relief by directing the
petitioner to be released on bal and personal bond with
surities.”
8. The bank, thereafter, filed their supplementary
counter affidavit, in which following informations have been
given, which is reproduced as under:
“I, Abhishek Verma, aged about 35 years, Son of Shri
Virendra Kumar R/O 2/21 MIG Barra, 7 Kanpur Nagar UP 208027
do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows:-
1. That at present I am posted as Manager (Law) Bihar
Gramin Bank and as such the deponent is well acquainted with the
facts and circumstances of the case.
2. That have been duly authorized to swear the present
supplementary counter affidavit on behalf of the Bank.
3. That I have gone through the contents of the
Supplementary Counter Affidavit which I have fully understood.
4. That no such supplementary affidavit has earlier
been filed and moved before this Hon’ble Court regarding this
matter.
5. That it is undisputed that the petitioner was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35632 of 2025(7) dt.23-04-2026
13/28functioning as Branch Manager of a rural banking institution
entrusted with safeguarding public deposits. The allegations
pertain to misappropriation of saving of ordinary customers and
therefore involved breach of fiduciary trust reposed in him. Apart
from the present case, the petitioner has been involved in acts
constituting criminal breach of trust, which have already resulted
in judicial proceedings against him, and the instant bail
application arises out of the said criminal misconduct. For proper
appreciation of the antecedents, conduct and credibility of the
petitioner, it is necessary to place on record his continued
involvement in fiduciary and official misconduct throughout his
service career. The petitioner has, for a considerable period, been
evading accountability for his wrongful acts and has approached
this Hon’ble Court without clean hands and the petitioner is
evading his misdeeds committed for a long time in different
branches, wherein he was posted, which by passage of time came
to light on receipt of complaints from the customers which was
surprise to the Bank. A brief of fraud committed and its modus
operandi has already been placed before the Hon’ble High Court in
the Counter Affidavit dated 23.11.2025 filed by the Bank in the
instant matter. Further, it is felt necessary to be placed on record
the disciplinary action taken by the bank under the applicable
Service Regulations against the petitioner by the Bank for his
fiduciary act for better appreciation of Bank’s plea to dismiss the
instant anticipatory bail application of the petitioner.
5. That the petitioner’s acts are not mere procedural
lapses but constitute a systematic modus operandi adopted to
siphon/divert public funds, thereby causing substantial pecuniary
loss and eroding institutional credibility. Therefore, independent of
the criminal proceedings, the Respondent-Bank initiated
disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.
6. That Chargesheet No. HO/DAD/16-23-24/No. 134,
134 (A), 134 (B) dated 11.09.2023 was issued for the misconduct
committed by the petitioner while discharging his duties as Branch
Manager, Sasai Bazar Branch under Regional Office Gopalganj.
7. That the petitioner was given 8 days’ time to submit
his statement of defense. The chargesheet was delivered on
07.10.2023 through Post (Ref. No. RF3835125161N) but he did not
submit statement of defense up to 03.11.2023, as such intimation
letter for non-submission of statement of defense has been issued to
petitioner (CSO), vide later no HO/DAD/16/23-24/180 dated
03.11.2023, which was delivered on 23.11.2023 through Post (Ref.
No. EF519590285IN). On appointment of Inquiry Authority (IA)
and Presenting Officer for the aforesaid chargesheet the intimation
of the same was given to the petitioner which was delivered to him
on 02.12.2023 through Post (Ref. No. RF414498683IN).
8. That vide letter dated 12 12.2023 the intimation of
the preliminary inquiry fixed for 22.12.2023 was sent to the
petitioner at his address [S/o Late Ramashankar Singh, at
Lohaganjar, PO Chhitanpur, Dist Siwan, Pin-841245 as per bank
records through registered post. (RF319333493IN)”. But he did not
participate in the departmental inquiry on 22.12.2023.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35632 of 2025(7) dt.23-04-2026
14/28
9. That the petitioner was provided with ample
opportunities to defend himself in the Departmental Enquiry
proceedings. He was also provided with the ample opportunities to
defend the charges with the help of a defense representative. He,
vide his consent letter dated 15.02.2023 appointed Mr. Pappu
Kumar Paswan, Branch Manager, Barauli Branch, RO Gopalganj
as his Defense representative (DR). Further, the petitioner has also
consented in the letter that departmental inquiry shall be
conducted in his absence and in presence of his defense
representative as such he did not attend departmental inquiry
proceedings.
10. That the Departmental Enquiry commenced from
22.12.2023 and concluded on 09.08.2024 in nine (09) sittings.
Presenting Officer presented twenty-five 25) documents marked as
Management Exhibits (MEX1(a)(b) to MEX22(a)(b), MEX23(a)(b)
(c)(d), MEX24(a)(b) to MEX25(a)(b)). But, Petitioner (CSO/DR
did not produce any defense exhibits/witness/es.
11. That the Presenting Officer submitted his undated
written brief to the Inquiry Authority on 02.10.2024. PO written
brief was forwarded to Petitioner (CSO)/DR by Inquiring Authority
on 02.10.2024 itself, which was received by DR on same day. DR
vide letter dated 19.10.2024 stated that he doesn’t have any
submissions to make regarding PO brief.
12. That Inquiry Authority submitted its finding on
25.10.2024, wherein he held the charge No. 01, 02, 03 and 04
levelled in Chargesheet No. HO/DAD/16/23-24/No. 134, 134(A),
134(B) dated 11.09.2023 against Petitioner (CSO) as proved.
13. That the findings of the Inquiry Authority was sent
to Petitioner (CSO) vide letter dated HO/DAD/17/23-24/179 dated
28.10.2024 for his submission vide registered post (Tracking ID-
RF439777216IN), which was delivered on 09.11.2024 and the
same was also sent to email id [email protected] But, Petitioner
(CSO) did not make any submission on IA findings.
14. That the Disciplinary Authority considered the
Departmental Engury proceedings and the evidence produced and
taken on record, concurred with the finding of the Inquiry Authority
and awarded charge wise as well as consolidated penalty to the
Petitioner (CSO) as under:-
Charge No. Proved/Not Imposed
Proved Punishment/Pen
alty
1 Proved Dismissal
2 Proved Dismissal
3 Proved Dismissal
4 Proved Dismissal
Finally, Disciplinary Authority awarded consolidated
penalty to the petitioner vide DA Order dated 10.12.2024, which is
as under:-
“Dismissal in terms of Regulation 39 (1) (b) (v) of the
Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank (Officers & Employees) Service
Regulations, 2010 read with the Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank Service
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35632 of 2025(7) dt.23-04-2026
15/28(Amendment) Regulations, 2013.
Further, in terms of Regulation 48 of the Uttar Bihar
Gramin Bank (Officers & Employees) Service Regulations, 2010,
read with the Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank (Amendment) Regulation,
2013 Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Singh shall not be paid any more
salary/ pay and allowances for the period he remained under
suspension than what was already paid to him as subsistence
allowances.”
15. That during the ongoing proceeding, it came to
light that the petitioner in connivance with other staff of the
Branch, debited Saving Account No. 1006321010003949 of Mrs.
Vina Sinha by Rs. 7,00,000/- on 17.10.2017. Besides in Saving
Account No. 1006321030008762 of Mr. Gulzar Miya, there are
three debit entries viz. Rs. 1,00,000/- on 28.02.2018, Rs. 2,00,000/-
on 19.06.2019 and Rs. 1,00,000/- on 11.01.2021. The above two
customers were issued fake MMDC certificate of Rs. 7,00,000/-, Rs.
1,00,000/-, Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- respectively without
opening MMDC accounts in CBS. As the acts constitute
misconduct for breach of Regulations 18 and 20 of the Uttar Bihar
Gramin Bank (Officers & Employees) Service Regulations, 2010,
attracting penalty under its Regulation 39, read with Uttar Bihar
Gramin Bank (Amendment) Regulations, 2013. Therefore, a
chargesheet dated 13.02.2024 Wi issued to the petitioner for his act
of irregularity and in the aforesa fraudulent act a FIR bearing
Nautan P.S Case No. 225/2023 dater 23.11.2023 was lodged under
section 406/409/420/467/468/34 IPC.
16. That copy of chargesheet was sent to the petitioner
(CSO) for his comments through registered post (Tracking ID –
EF728180045IN) on 17.02.2024 on address as per Bank records.
However, the same was returned undelivered on 01.03.2024 with
remarks **izkIrdrkZ ifjokj lfgr fcuk irk crk;s ckgj jgrk gSA okil fd;k
tkrk gSA** Subsequently, intimation of issue of the Chargesheet was
published in two newspapers on 03.04.2024. But the petitioner
(CSO) did not turned up to collect the copy of chargesheet and
therefore as per the power conferred under service regulation, the
Disciplinary Authority appointed Inquiry officer and Presenting
Officer vide Order dated 08.05.2024, to inquire into the charges
framed against petitioner (CSO). The domestic inquiry was set up
but in all the 05 sittings of the departmental proceeding the
petitioner (CSO) was absent.
17. That meanwhile an another fraud in Kanhauli 2
Branch to the tune of Rs. 47,64,316/- came in light, where the
petitioner was posted. For clarity it is felt necessary to produce the
entire episode in brief, which is as under:-
A request was received from customer Shri. Satyaveer
Yadav having Saving A/c -1006631010000792 on 16.10.2023
regarding closure of MMDC 1006631230002777 and credit of the
closure proceed in his saving account. Branch Manager, Kanhauli
vide letter BOIK-212023-241223 dated 17.10.2023 reported to
Regional Office that the MMDC (Account no. 1006631230002777)
is not opened in CBS but a forged MMDC was issued. MMDC
submitted by the customer bears the signature of the then Branch
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35632 of 2025(7) dt.23-04-2026
16/28Manager of Shapur Nautan Branch along with the Branch seal. A
complaint was received from customer Shri. Satyaveer Yadav
Saving A/c-1006631010000792 by Branch, regarding unauthorized
debit of Rs. 5,00,000/- from his saving account. Branch Manager,
Kanhauli vide letter no. BO/K-2/2023-24/229 dated 16.11.2023
reported the same to Regional Office, Siwan. On dated 17.10.2023,
another request from Smt. Usha Kumari was received for payment
of MMDC Devi A/c no-1006631230000478 was received by
Branch. Branch Manager, Kanhauli 2. vide letter dated BO/K-
2/2023-24/224 dated 17.10.2023 reported to Regional Office that
the above said MMDC (Account No. 1006631230000478) was not
opened in CBS. Regional officer Ordered an internal investigation
in the matter wherein the modus operandi of the fraud culminated
as under:-
seventy five paise) was reported at Branch Office
Shahpur Nautan under Regional Ofice Sivan, wherein the
petitioner was found involved in the internal investigation. Modus
operandi of the aforesaid fraud is as under:-
“Fake MMDC certificates issued to the customer,
amount debited from the account of respective customers but
transferred to the other account of the different customer and
MMDC account was not opened in Finacle. Amount received for
closure of loan account but it was not credited in the said account.
Loan amount was also not closed. However, no dues certificate was
issued to the customer.”
19. That the petitioner was issued Chargesheet No.
HO/DAD/16/23-24/271 dated 13.02.2024 and departmental
inquiry for the same was underway since 28.05.2024 till
07.12.2024. But the petitioner has been “Dismissed from the Bank’s
service” vide Disciplinary Authority Order dated 10.12.2024 for
his involvement in fraud of Sisai Bazar Branch, therefore the
disciplinary proceeding in Chargesheet No. HO/DAD/16/23-
24/271 dated 13.02.2024 pertaining to Shahpur Nautan Branch,
Minutes of accountability dated 15.11.2024 pertaining to Kanhauli
2 Branch R.O Siwan and “Fake Fixed deposit certificate was
issued to customers. MMDC accounts were neither opened in CBS
nor the amount of customers deposited in the MMDC account. In
one of the instance the saving account of the customer was debited
severally without mandate of customer and amount was transferred
to the account of a different customers.”
On conclusion of the internal investigation, it came to
light that the petitioner is involved in the major irregularities which
amounts to Rs. 47,64,316/- and therefore he was held accountable
for the fraud. Another FIR has also been lodged for the fraud
against the petitioner bearing Darauli P.S Case No. 252 of 2024, in
which the petitioner has preferred the instant bail application.
18. That an additional fraud to the tune of Rs.
96,96,175.77l- (Rupees Ninety six lakh ninety six thousand one
hundred seventy five and Minutes of accountability dated
16.11.2024 pertaining to additional fraud in Shahpur Nautan
Branch R.O Siwan has been kept in abeyance and accordingly it
has been reported to Vigilance Department-RRB, Central Office,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35632 of 2025(7) dt.23-04-2026
17/28
Central Bank of India, Mumbai vide letter dated 16.12.2024.20.
20. That after observing the involvement of the
petitioner in such huge amount of embezzlement in various
branches and fraud committed in a very sophisticated manner that
was not easy to detect as the amount involved in fraud came in
light only when the customers approached the branches with their
fake MMDC for payment and thus the petitioner was successful in
putting curtain over his misdeed for such a long time.
21. That the Court of the XI, Addl. Session Judge,
District Gopalganj (Bihar) rejected the Bail application of the
petitioner in ABP No. 1159 of 2023 in Bhore P.S Case No.
175/2023 registered u/s 420,406, 467, 468, 471 of IPC for fraud
committed by the petitioner while his posting at B.O Sasai Bazar
and the court of the 1, Addl. Session Judge-cum-spl judge rejected
the Bail application of the petitioner in Nautan P.S Case No.
225/2023 u/s 406, 409, 467, 468/34 of IPC for fraud committed
while his posting at Sahpur Nautan and the court of Principal
Session Judge, Siwan rejected the anticipatory bail in Darauti P.S
Case No. 252/2024 registered under section 409 & 420 of IPC for
fraud committed at Kanhauli 2 Branch. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and the nature of offence in Nautan P.S
Case No. 225 of 2023, Hon’ble HC, Patna has also rejected the
anticipatory bail application of the petitioner in Cr. Misc. No.
46681 of 2024 vide Order dated 02.12.2024.
22. That the petitioner has cunningly tried to mislead
the Hon’ble court by presenting only his beneficial part of the Bank
accountability policy and hid the true spirit of the said policy to
check the exemplary fraud committed by him. The clause 7(XII) of
Bank accountability policy clearly infers that time limit of two
successive audit reports or four years from the date of event will
not apply in this case of (i) Fraud (ii) Other Criminal Offenses (iii)
Cases where mala-fides are inferable. It is further pertinent to
mention here that the objective of the staff accountability policy is
to protect the bonafide actions/decisions taken by the staff in the
interest of the Bank and not to protect the mischievous committed
by persons like the petitioner who being a custodian of public
money committed criminal breach of trust for his personal gain and
embezzled a huge amount of hard earned public money to the tune
of Rs. 1,89,95,765.771- (Rupees One Crore Eighty Nine Lakh
Ninety five Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Five and Seventy Seven
Paise only). Thus, the petitioner has attempted to present a
fragmented and diluted narrative, concealing the systematic and
fraudulent nature of his acts. (emphasis supplied)
23. That it is most respectfully submitted that had the
petitioner been innocent and not a beneficiary of the fraudulent
transactions, he would have duly participated in the departmental
proceedings to establish his defense. However, the petitioner
deliberately chose to evade and abstain from the enquiry
proceedings despite due notices and opportunity being afforded to
him. The petitioner was found involved in fiduciary act amounting
to the tune of Rs. 1,89,95,765.77/-, wherein he was posted in the
branches where the fraud was committed and the modus operandi
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35632 of 2025(7) dt.23-04-2026
18/28
was also the same. Such deliberate non-participation clearly
reflects a conscious attempt to avoid lawful proceedings initiated
against him, which is a glaring circumstance indicative of his
culpability and involvement in the fraudulent acts.
24. That it is submitted that the Hon’ble Court had
categorically directed the petitioner vide Order dated 19.03.2026
to appear before the concerned branch on a specified date for
obtaining relevan documents. The operative part of the Order is
appended below:-
“4. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that he is ready to present himself before the bank so that
all the documents which has led to the lodging of the FIR is/are
handed over to him and he could peruse and act accordingly.
5. He undertakes to present himself on 23.03.2026 at
11:00 A.M. before the Branch Manager of the Bank and the
Manager shall ensure that in between, all the documents relating to
the petitioner is ready, handed over to him and the receipt is to be
recorded in the office and brought on record by way of counter
affidavit.
6. Let the matter come up on 16.04.2026 on which date,
the petitioner shall be filing supplementary affidavit on the
development after he receives the documents relating to the
fraudulent act as alleged in the present case.”
However, the petitioner, in clear and wilful
disobedience of the said judicial order, failed to present himself and
chose to ignore the mandate of this Hon’ble Court. It is only at a
much belated stage that an undated letter was received from the
petitioner seeking certain documents, which was well beyond the
time granted by this Hon’ble Court and abuse of the Order of his
personal presence. Nonetheless, the answering Bank, being a law-
abiding institution, supplied the documents in good faith and in
adherence to principles of fairness vide letter dated 10.04.2026.
Further, it is submitted that the conduct of the petitioner, marked by
deliberate non-compliance with judicial directions, clearly
demonstrates his disregard for the rule of law. It is a settled
principle that a litigant whose conduct is contumacious and who
approaches the Court without bona fides disentitles himself from
any equitable or discretionary relief, including the grant of bail.
The petitioner’s conduct further gives rise to a reasonable and
well-founded apprehension that, if enlarged on bail, he is likely to
tamper with evidence, influence witnesses, and obstruct the
ongoing departmental and judicial proceedings. On this ground
alone, the present bail application deserves to be rejected.
25. That in view of the continuing investigation,
documentary trail disclosed in the investigation reports and
concurrent judicial findings refusing anticipatory bail, Respondent
Bank submits that grant of interim protection from arrest vide
Hon’ble HC Order dated 20.08.2025 may be vacated as it would
impede effective investigation and frustrate the process of law and
administration of criminal justice and reject the anticipatory bail
application outrightly in the interest of justice. ” (emphasis
supplied)
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35632 of 2025(7) dt.23-04-2026
19/28
9. The present F.I.R. is illustrative of transactions
pertaining to one branch of the Gramin Bank; however, the
modus operandi emerging from the record prima facie indicates
that the alleged scam is not confined to a single branch or to the
accused only like petitioner, but is suggestive of the
involvement and possible complicity of higher rank officials as
well, which gains further force when the reply of the petitioner
to the counter affidavit is considered vis-Ã -vis the admitted
position that the fraudulent activities have continued over a
considerable period, though the assessment of financial loss has
been restricted to only ten years. It is also evident from the
Quick Study Report of NABARD that, the irregularities are not
limited to the present branch, but extend across several branches
of the Cooperative Bank throughout the State since its inception,
though the said report, in the present context, pertains only to
the F.I.R. in question and does not comprehensively quantify the
total financial loss across all the branches. As per paragraph no.
22 of the counter affidavit, the financial loss attributed to the
petitioner on account of the alleged fraud has been estimated at
Rs. 1,89,95,765.77; however, the petitioner, in defence, has
contended that it is incongruous for the bank to allege that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35632 of 2025(7) dt.23-04-2026
20/28
account of Satyaveer Yadav was forged when the maturity
amount has admittedly been defalcated from the said account
holder. Further, in view of the established banking procedure,
wherein the role of the Office Assistant is that of a “Maker”
whose actions are subject to verification and authorization by
higher officials, the occurrence of a fraud of such magnitude
without the knowledge, connivance, or active complicity of
superior officials cannot be ruled out at this stage.
10. The Quick Study Report submitted by NABARD
is not only confined to the present F.I.R. Nevertheless, it stands
as an admitted and undisputed position, consistently noticed by
this Court in many other FIR relating to other branches which
officials are made accused, which suggest that the alleged scam
is not restricted to a solitary branch. The involvement of the
official of the Bank in ongoing scam since the inception of the
Gramin Bank discloses a matter of serious concern involving
potential money laundering attracting the provisions of
11. Upon a careful consideration of the information
contained in the counter affidavit and the supplementary counter
affidavit filed on behalf of the Bank, as well as, the rejoinder
filed by the petitioner, this Court is, prima facie, satisfied that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35632 of 2025(7) dt.23-04-2026
21/28
the material disclose a grave and large-scale defalcation of
public money by bank officials through a well-orchestrated and
systematic modus operandi, based on past ten years figures, the
prosecution has been initiated against the petitioner, against
whom allegation is of committing fraud while he was posted as
clerk at Branch office Kanhauli 2 of Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank
from June, 2011 to September, 2014 having allegedly
embezzled huge amount, which was reported during the internal
audit. The other instances this Court has come is that in many
other cases, documentary details placed before this Court,
indicate misappropriation of substantial funds, which were
credited to bank accounts for investments under beneficiary
schemes such as the “Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana”, as well as,
for agricultural loans and agricultural insurance intended for
poor farmers. They have not only violated the guidelines and the
strict adherence to the NABARD, but, at the same time, they
have violated the different circulars of the Reserve Bank of
India issued from time to time. It has been specifically informed
in paragraph no. 25 of the counter affidavit that there is clear
money trial in the present case as revealed in the enquiry report,
as well as, Quick Study Report of NABARD, which goes to
suggest that the petitioner has not only orchestrated and played
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35632 of 2025(7) dt.23-04-2026
22/28
an active role in “Scam” but also directly benefited. The nature,
magnitude, and continuity of the alleged acts suggest that the
offence is not confined to isolated transactions but points
towards a deep-rooted and organized pattern of government
fund misappropriated having wide-ranging ramifications on
public confidence in banking institutions. Such acts prima facie
appears to be made out not only against the petitioner but
complicity of the other bank officials, who are holding higher
positions in management cannot be ruled out, which constitute
grave economic offence affecting the financial system and the
rule of law, and therefore necessitate a thorough,
comprehensive, and independent investigation in accordance
with law.
12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held
that the economic crimes are regularly committed with
deliberate design adversely affecting the financial health of the
nation. In this regard, I find it appropriate to refer the judgment
of the Apex Court in case of Nimmagadda Prasad v. CBI
reported in (2013) 7 SCC 466, clearly underscore the settled
principle that economic offences stand on a distinct footing and
are required to be viewed with greater seriousness while
considering the question of bail. The Apex Court has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35632 of 2025(7) dt.23-04-2026
23/28
emphatically held that such offences are not confined to an
individual dispute alone but have far-reaching repercussions on
the economic system and public confidence in the
administration of justice. It has further been observed that
economic crimes are generally committed with deliberate design
and calculated intent for personal gain, thereby causing
substantial loss to public funds and adversely affecting the
financial health of the nation. The Court also reiterated that
while considering a prayer for bail, the nature and gravity of
accusation, severity of punishment, possibility of tampering
with evidence or influencing witnesses, and the larger interest of
the public and the State are relevant considerations. Thus, in
cases involving deep-rooted conspiracy and large-scale financial
irregularities, a stricter approach is warranted, as such offences
constitute a class apart and deserve to be dealt with differently
in the matter of grant of bail. At the same time, it has
consistently been held that in an application for anticipatory bail
under Section 482 of the BNSS, the Court is restricted to either
grant anticipatory bail or reject it but this Court is conscious that
this Court is a Constitutional Court and in the situation like this,
this Court is of the view that in larger public interest, which
necessitates institution of Public Interest Litigation considering
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35632 of 2025(7) dt.23-04-2026
24/28
that not only the trust and faith of the citizen but, at the same
time, National Economy and National interest is involved. The
economic offence, which has been reported finds it deep root
and conspiracy leading to huge loss of public finds and material
suggests that not only the petitioner has knowingly and
intentionally participated in the process and activities acted with
the possession acquisition but the complicity of the higher
authority cannot be ruled out and the proceeds satisfying the
ingredients of money laundering under Section 3 of the
P.M.L.A. Act.
13. In this regard, I find support from the finding and
observation of the Apex Court, dealing with the constitutional
power of High Court of public importance, in the case of
Sanjay Dubey vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 435 has held that under Article
214 of the Constitution of India the High Courts should not lose
its sight when it necessitates it in constitution as the present one
to abdicate from exercising it Constitutional power. In this
regard, I find it gainful to reproduce paragraphs no. 10 to 19 of
the aforesaid judgment, which inter alia are as follows:
“10. Having given the matter our anxious and
thoughtful consideration, though the appellant may have a
point that, stricto sensu, in a petition under Section 439 of
the Code, the concerned Court ought not to travel beyond
considering the specific issue viz. whether to grant bail or
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35632 of 2025(7) dt.23-04-2026
25/28reject bail to an accused in custody, it cannot be lost sight
of that the Court concerned herein was not a ‘Court of
Session’ but the High Court for the State of Madhya
Pradesh, established under Article 214 of the Constitution
of India (hereinafter referred to as the “Constitution”).
11. This singular fact, for reasons elaborated
hereinafter, leads us to decline interfering with the
Impugned Judgment, but for different reasons. We have no
hesitation in stating that had the Impugned Judgment been
rendered by a Court of Session, the factors that would have
weighed with us would be starkly different.
12. A little digression is necessitated. The
HighCourt is a Constitutional Court, possessing a wide
repertoire of powers. The High Court has original,
appellate and suo motu powers under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution. The powers under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution are meant for taking care of situations
where the High Court feels that some direction(s)/order(s)
are required in the interest of justice. Recently, in B S Hari
Commandant v Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 413,
the present coram had the occasion to hold as under:
“50. Article 226 of the Constitution is a succour
to remedy injustice, and any limit on exercise of such power,
is only self-imposed. Gainful refer ence can be made to,
amongst others, A V Venkateswaran v. Ramchand Sobhraj
Wadhwani, (1962) 1 U P SCR 573 and State Sugar
Corporation v. Kamal Swaroop Tandon, Ltd. (2008) 2 SCC
41. The High Courts, under the Constitutional scheme, are
endowed with the ability to issue prerogative writs to
safeguard rights of citizens. For exactly this reason, this
Court has never laid down any strait-jacket principles that
can be said to have “cribbed, cabined and confined” [to
borrow the term employed by the Hon. Bhagwati, J. (as he
then was) in E P Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 4
SCC 3 : AIR 1974 SC 555 ] the extraordinary powers
vested under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution.
Adjudged on the anvil of Nawab Shaqafath Ali Khan
(supra), this was a fit case for the High Court to have
examined the matter threadbare, more so, when it did not
involve navigating a factual minefield.” (emphasis
supplied)
13. Returning to the present case, though
usually the proper course of action of the High Court ought
to have been to confine itself to the acceptance/rejection of
the prayer for bail made by the accused under Section 439
of the Code; however the High Court, being satisfied that
there were, in its opinion, grave lapses on the part of the
police/investigative machinery, which may have fatal
consequences on the justice delivery system, could not have
simply shut its eyes.
14. We are of the view that the learned Single
Bench could have directed institution of separate
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35632 of 2025(7) dt.23-04-2026
26/28proceedings taking recourse to Article 226 of the
Constitution, after formulating reasons and points for
consideration. Thereafter, the matter should have been
referred to the learned Chief Justice of the High Court for
placing it before an appropriate Bench, which would
proceed in accordance with law, of course, after affording
adequate opportunity to the person(s) proceeded against.
15. With regard to the High Court’s justified
concern to prevent miscarriage of justice, separate/fresh
proceedings could have been instituted as indicated above.
We hasten to add that our observations are not to be
construed to imply that the High Courts should delve into
the efficacy of investigation at the stage of bail, and the
present judgment is not to be misread to haul up the
investigative agencies/officers in all cases.
16. This Court could have interfered with the
‘direction’ for departmental proceedings against the
appellant, as learned counsel for the appellant advanced,
had been so done in Sangitaben Shaileshbhai Datanta
(supra) and M Murugesan (supra). However, it would be
proper to take note that in the aforesaid two cases, the
factual positions were quite different. In Sangitaben
Shaileshbhai Datanta (supra), the Court took note of the
fact that in the case involving rape of a minor, the High
Court ordering the accused and the appellant therein, who
was the grandmother of the victim along with parents of the
victim to undergo scientific tests viz. lie detection, brain-
mapping and narco-analysis was not only in contravention
of the first principles of criminal law jurisprudence but also
a violation of statutory requirements and thus, the bail
granted to the accused was cancelled. The facts of the
instant case are quite different, and ergo, Sangitaben
Shaileshbhai Datanta (supra) does not aid the appellant.
17. In M Murugesan (supra), it was noted that
the jurisdiction of High Court is limited to grant or refuse
to grant bail pending trial and such jurisdiction ends when
the bail application is finally decided. In this background,
the High Court, after taking a decision on the bail
application, having retained the file and directing the State
to constitute a Committee and seek its recommendation on
reformation, rehabilitation and re-integration of
convicts/accused persons and best practices for improving
the quality of investigation and also to obtain District-wise
data from State and upon submission of final data, after
reviewing the same, making such data a part of the order
after decision on bail application, was held to be beyond
jurisdiction. In the present case, on the date of passing of
the Impugned Judgment, the bail application was still at
large, and had not yet been decided one way or the other.
18. There is no quibble with the propositions
lucidlyenunciated in Sangitaben Shaileshbhai Datanta
(supra) and M Murugesan (supra). Yet, as our discussions
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35632 of 2025(7) dt.23-04-2026
27/28
in the preceding paragraphs display, the same are
inapplicable to the extant factual matrix. It is too well-
settled that judgments are not to be read as Euclid’s
theorems; they are not to be construed as statutes, and;
specific cases are authorities only for what they actually
decide. We do not want to be verbose in reproducing the
relevant paragraphs but deem it proper to indicate some
authorities on this point – Sreenivasa General Traders v
State of Andhra Pradesh, (1983) 4 SCC 353 and M/s Amar
Nath Om Prakash v State of Punjab, (1985) 1 SCC 345 –
which have been reiterated, inter alia, in BGS SGS Soma JV
v NHPC Limited, (2020) 4 SCC 234, and Chintels India
Limited v Bhayana Builders Private Limited, (2021) 4 SCC
602.
19. In the present case, the judgment impugned
was passed before the final disposal of the bail application
by the High Court. On a closer scrutiny of the judgment
impugned, it is clear that the Superintendent of Police,
Katni, while appearing in person on 21.09.2022 had
submitted that he had already line-attached the appellant
vide an order dated 20.09.2022 and was initiating enquiry
for imposition of major penalty. The High Court was
informed that the Superintendent of Police, Katni would
“get conducted preliminary enquiry in the hands of the
Additional S.P. and forward the report to the disciplinary
authority of the T.I. to initiate inquiry for major penalty.”
14. Based on the material which has come in the
counter affidavit, rejoinder to the counter affidavit and the
supplementary counter affidavit, a case of fraud committed by
the bank personnel falls within the ambit of predicate offence.
15. Since the allegation of large scale
misappropriation and corruption in banking transaction
involving not only fraud reported involvement of the petitioner
in respect of fraudulent withdrawal of money of an account
holder namely Satyaveer Yadav, it also involves siphoning of
government fund deposited for distribution on account of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35632 of 2025(7) dt.23-04-2026
28/28
different government schemes, which has affected the economy
of the nation causing serious threat to the financial health of the
country, at the same time, has eroded public confidence and as
this Court finds it proper not to be treated lightly. I find it proper
to direct the Registry of this Court to place the records of this
case before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice in larger public interest
and in the interest so that a strict measure can be taken to stop
misappropriation of public money.
16. The interim protection granted to the petitioner
vide order dated 20.08.2025 shall continue.
17. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
office of learned Advocate General, Bihar, Chairman, Bihar
Gramin Bank to seek instruction and Dr. K.N. Singh, learned
Additional Solicitor General, Union of India, so that he may
communicate this order to the Reserve Bank of India and
Ministry of Home Affairs and Finance, Government of India for
placing action taken report before the appropriate Bench on or
before 18.06.2026.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Niraj/-
U T
