Bail plea rejected
|
IMPHAL, Jul 7 : The Session Judge Imphal West today rejected the anticipatory bail application filed by Branch Manager of Punjab National Bank Kanglatongbi Branch Singsit Khupeden for his alleged involvement in fraudulent activities while implementing the Startup scheme of the State Government.
Singsit Khupeden (38), s/o Singsit Thongkhokam of Hmarveng Churachandpur was granted interim pre arrest bail by the same Court and directed the Officer-in charge concerned to submit a detailed report regarding the FIR registered against him on June 18.
The Additional SP (CID-CB), in his report, said that the complaint was filed by the Manager of PNB, Kanglatongbi Branch Ksh Soroj Kumar on March 2, 2022.
As per the complainant, the scheme provides subsidies which range from Rs 1 lakh to Rs 30 lakh depending on the stages of the scheme and a total number of seven applications were purportedly received and processed by the Kanglatongbi Branch of the Punjab National Bank.
It was mandatory to open loan accounts of the beneficiary so that the instalments and subsidy could be credited in the loan accounts but it transpired from the LSS and MIS reports of the branch that loan accounts were never opened for the seven applications in the CBS system, said the complainant.
The Bank of Baroda which is the nodal bank of the Startup Manipur scheme released a total subsidy amounting to Rs 1,77,09,000 to the Non Customer Account of Kanglatongbi Branch on November 5, 2021 but as no loan accounts were opened, the money was credited to the customer bank accounts and hence a case was registered for investigation.
Counsel of the petitioner Sh Singsit Khupden submitted that the disbursement of subsidy to the beneficiary in their respective current accounts mistakenly but it does not cause any prejudice to the beneficiaries.
The petitioner counsel also submitted that there is no allegation that the subsidy amount was not received by the genuine beneficiaries approved by the Government.
On the other hand, Special PP submitted that the petitioner is the Manager of the Punjab National Bank, Kanglatongbi Branch and as such he is the head of the office and so far, four accused persons have been arrested in connection with the case and out of these four two are on bail.
It was further submitted that the petitioner and the arrested accused worked out a plan to misappropriate the beneficiaries’ subsidy by claiming that loans were sanctioned to the beneficiaries.
The Court perused the application as well as police report and observed that the Branch Manager has loan sanctioning power of Rs 10 lakh only and mentioned that the petitioner is refusing to give information about material evidence.
Court further observed that the petitioner, being the Manager of the branch, must follow the bank rules especially when a huge amount of money is involved.
The Court also observed that other co-accused persons have been identified during the investigation.
From the findings and considering the stage of the investigation, the Court opined that a proper and thorough investigation must be done in the interest of justice and it will not be proper if the Court interferes in the investigation.
Accordingly, the pre-arrest bail application was rejected and disposed.
Singsit Khupeden (38), s/o Singsit Thongkhokam of Hmarveng Churachandpur was granted interim pre arrest bail by the same Court and directed the Officer-in charge concerned to submit a detailed report regarding the FIR registered against him on June 18.
The Additional SP (CID-CB), in his report, said that the complaint was filed by the Manager of PNB, Kanglatongbi Branch Ksh Soroj Kumar on March 2, 2022.
As per the complainant, the scheme provides subsidies which range from Rs 1 lakh to Rs 30 lakh depending on the stages of the scheme and a total number of seven applications were purportedly received and processed by the Kanglatongbi Branch of the Punjab National Bank.
It was mandatory to open loan accounts of the beneficiary so that the instalments and subsidy could be credited in the loan accounts but it transpired from the LSS and MIS reports of the branch that loan accounts were never opened for the seven applications in the CBS system, said the complainant.
The Bank of Baroda which is the nodal bank of the Startup Manipur scheme released a total subsidy amounting to Rs 1,77,09,000 to the Non Customer Account of Kanglatongbi Branch on November 5, 2021 but as no loan accounts were opened, the money was credited to the customer bank accounts and hence a case was registered for investigation.
Counsel of the petitioner Sh Singsit Khupden submitted that the disbursement of subsidy to the beneficiary in their respective current accounts mistakenly but it does not cause any prejudice to the beneficiaries.
The petitioner counsel also submitted that there is no allegation that the subsidy amount was not received by the genuine beneficiaries approved by the Government.
On the other hand, Special PP submitted that the petitioner is the Manager of the Punjab National Bank, Kanglatongbi Branch and as such he is the head of the office and so far, four accused persons have been arrested in connection with the case and out of these four two are on bail.
It was further submitted that the petitioner and the arrested accused worked out a plan to misappropriate the beneficiaries’ subsidy by claiming that loans were sanctioned to the beneficiaries.
The Court perused the application as well as police report and observed that the Branch Manager has loan sanctioning power of Rs 10 lakh only and mentioned that the petitioner is refusing to give information about material evidence.
Court further observed that the petitioner, being the Manager of the branch, must follow the bank rules especially when a huge amount of money is involved.
The Court also observed that other co-accused persons have been identified during the investigation.
From the findings and considering the stage of the investigation, the Court opined that a proper and thorough investigation must be done in the interest of justice and it will not be proper if the Court interferes in the investigation.
Accordingly, the pre-arrest bail application was rejected and disposed.