Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner prays for bail in a case which was filed under Ss. 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 13(2) read with Sec. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. The allegation in the FIR is that co-accused Sindhu Ratan Kul Bhaskar while functioning as Manager, Cenral Bank of India, Main Branch, Patna and accused Pandey Arun Kumar Srivastava, Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Main Branch, Patna entered into a criminal conspiracy with the petitioner, one Smt. Vishakha Sindhu and others and all by abusing their official position sanctioned unauthorized pre/post shipment advances to firms belonging to the relatives and associates of Shri Sindhu Ratan Kul Bhaskar and thereby caused a wrongful loss of Rs. 368.56 lacs to the Bank. It was also alleged that they committed forgery by altering dates and concealing the original dates with intention to coyer up the irregular advances and also falsified the entries in the bank accounts and other documents. It was further alleged that co-accused Smt. Vishakha Sindhu is the wife of S.R.K. Bhaskar and the petitioner is the brother of the said wife. The further allegeation is that without observing the formalities and verifying the business antecedents of the firms, M/s Sidhi Exports Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Sidhi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. in which the petitioner and co-accused were directors, Mr. S.R.K. Bhaskar dishonestly allowed heavy overdrawings in the packing credit account of M/s Sidhi Overseas Pvt. Ltd and as a result delivery of money was made by the Bank to the firm causing wrongful gain of Rs. 80.93 lacs approximately to the firm and corresponding loss to the bank. Similar allegations were made with respect to other activities like acceptance of bills for collection/negotiations, many of these bills which had the consignee same as drawee and many of which had been returned by the drawee bank as unaccepted by the drawee and in which the bank had delivered a large amount of money to the firm as a result of which the firm made a wrongful gain of Rs. 69.13 lacs and a corresponding loss to the bank. There were further allegations of making false credit entry on 16.8.1999 of Rs. 69.13 lacs and a corresponding loss to the bank. There were further allegations of making false credit entry on 16.8.1999 of Rs. 19 lacs in the Packing Credit Account of M/s Sidhi Overseas Pvt. Ltd., by debiting a non-existent other Term Loan account knowing fully that the Packing Credit Account can be credited only with export proceeds. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly argued that whatever transaction had taken place between the company in which the petitioner was a Director and the Bank were in the nature of commercial transactions entered into in normal course of business and there was never any intention at the outset to cheat the bank and thus it is not a case of cheating at all. It is submitted by him that it is the overseas purchasers of the goods who had defaulted in their commitments as a result of which the company in which the accused persons were Directors was not able to finish its commitments and as a matter of fact huge amounts are recoverable by the said Company from the overseas defaulters and if the same gets collected then the entire outstanding of the Bank would be liquidated. It was further argued by the learned counsel that out of the amount of Rs. 72 lacs due in the Packing Credit Account an amount of Rs. 40 lacs on the credit of export proceeds has been deposited in the account and thus only 32 lacs remains to be paid in the said Account. Learned counsel also submits that the Company of the petitioner has filed as many as five complaint cases against the defaulters who have not paid the money of the Company and thus the petitioner cannot be held to be guilty of any criminal offence. 5. It is further argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Bank also was responsible for the commission of default because had it stopped the export bills and other documents and the goods from being sent out by intervening with the Custom authorities as a result of which a large amount of money of the petitioner remained unpaid for which the petitioners company had filed Title Suit No. 88/2001 on 27.2.2001 which was admitted on 30.3.2001 and the present case has been filed as a counter blast to the same. Learned counsel also points out to the fact that the bank has filed an application before the DRT for the realization of the dues in which it is admitted that all the transactions have taken place in the course of normal business and prayer has been made for recovery of the dues. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner is an Advocate by profession and he was a part-time Director only in M/s Sidhi Overseas Pvt, Ltd. and he was not at all incharge of the management of the company or running the affairs or its day to day work. The real culprit in this case was one Quambar Hussain. For all the said reasons, it is submitted by the learned counsel that this is neither a case of cheating nor forgery and thus, the petitioner ought to be granted anticipatory bail. 6. Learned counsel for the CBI, on the other hand, submitted that earlier this Court had rejected the anticipatory bail petition of three other accused persons and considering the grave facts and circumstances of this case none of them have been released on anticipatory bail. It was further argued by him that the petitioner being a Director of the Company closely related to other accused persons who had misused their offices and cheated the Bank, cannot claim to be a mere part-time Director and he was one of the chief beneficiaries of the huge amounts of which the bank has been defrauded. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the CBI that the petitioner on several occasions applied for loan to the Bank and thus he cannot claim to be a mere part-time Director of the Company, rather he was actively taking part in running the company. It is submitted that Mr. SRK Bhaskar was instrumental in arranging illegal huge amounts to the funds of the company of which his wife Smt. Vishakha Sindhu and her brother the present petitioner were Directors and thus the petitioner cannot claim to be innocent in the matter. Learned counsel also points out that the charge sheet has been submitted on 8.7.2004 and the cognizance has been taken on 13.8.2004 but the petitioner cannot be located at his regular address and has been absconding for all these years. Learned counsel also points out that the charge sheet has been submitted on 8.7.2004 and the cognizance has been taken on 13.8.2004 but the petitioner cannot be located at his regular address and has been absconding for all these years. Thus for the said reasons it is submitted that this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7. On a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case and considering the close relationship between the accused persons who were in the Bank or Directors of the Company, this Court does not consider it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. His prayer for anticipatory bail is accordingly rejected.