Order 1. This application is directed against the order dated 3.8.2011 passed in R.C. No.08(A) of 2006(R) by the then Special Judge, C.B.I, Ranchi whereby and whereunder prayer for discharge made by the petitioner was rejected. The case of the prosecution is that when the informant after joining as Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Kishoreganj Branch did find that recoveries are not forth coming in several existing loan accounts, he tried to contact the borrowers/ guarantors. In that process, it was found that some of the persons who stood guarantors for the borrowers who were sanctioned loan are not traceable. Thereafter when enquiry was made, it was found that this petitioner, who at the relevant point of time was the Manager, in connivance with other Bank officials and the borrowers had sanctioned loan in favour of eight firms in total disregard to the guidelines issued by the Bank in the mater of extending credit facilities to the borrowers. Credit facilities were extended to eight borrower without examining the correctness of the figure of the sales projected by the borrowing firms and that credit facilities were extended to the borrowers to increase the business activities but they were not found engaging themselves in the said business and thereby it was diversion of the fund. Further it has been alleged that in case of loan sanctioned to six borrowers, it was found that persons, who had stood guarantors were the fake persons as they had died much much before, as a result of which, all the aforesaid eight accounts turned bad and thereby the petitioners and other Bank officials in systematic manner put the Bank to loss to the extent of Rs.72.77 lacs. On the aforesaid allegation, a case was registered as R.C. No.08(A) of 2006(R) under Sections 420,471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. On submission of the charge sheet, cognizance of the offences was taken against the petitioner and others. Thereupon an application was filed for discharge by the petitioner which was rejected, vide order dated 3.8.2011 which is under challenge. Mr.P.P.N.Roy, learned Sr. On submission of the charge sheet, cognizance of the offences was taken against the petitioner and others. Thereupon an application was filed for discharge by the petitioner which was rejected, vide order dated 3.8.2011 which is under challenge. Mr.P.P.N.Roy, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that F.I.R had been lodged on the allegation that on account of non-deposit of the amount by the borrowers, the Bank has been put to loss to the extent of Rs.72.77 lacs but the fact is that not a single penny is outstanding against the borrowers, M/s. Nath Opticals, M/s. Adukia Finvest Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Asha Agencies, M/s. Maa Laxmi Industries and so far other borrowers are concerned, meager amount is left to be deposited and thereby it can never be the case of the prosecution that the Bank was put to loss to the extent of Rs.72.77 lacs. It was further submitted that the petitioner at the relevant point of time was posted as Manager and he during his tenure had sanctioned loan to the borrowers as per the guidelines issued by the Bank. The petitioner was supposed to sanction the loan on the recommendation made over the documents processed by the Loan Officer and that all the documents had been verified by the then Loan Officer, Anil Kumar Sinha, who is also an accused and thereby he can be said to be the person responsible for the commission of offence alleged and that so far the act of execution of fake deed of guarantees and also the act of impersonation is concerned, it is the borrower who is responsible for it and not the petitioner. Thus, it was submitted that under the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner cannot be said to be responsible for commission of the offence alleged but the court below did not consider all these aspects of the matter in right perspective while considering the matter for discharge and hence, the order rejecting the prayer for discharge is fit to be set aside. As against this, Mr.M. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I submitted that the materials which have been collected in course of investigation go to show that this petitioner in connivance with other Bank officials as well as borrowers had sanctioned loan fraudulently and dishonestly to as many as eight firms by ignoring the guidelines issued in this respect by the Bank. In this regard it was submitted that in case of sanction of loan to M/s. Nath Opticals, it was found that deed of agreement signed by one Ghasiya Mahto was accepted by the petitioner dishonestly as he was the fake guarantor. Similarly, the petitioner accepted the bank guarantees executed by the fake persons while sanctioning loan to M/s. Gitanjali Furniture, M/s. Jharkhand Sales, M/s. Arihant enterprises and others and in this manner, the petitioner in connivance with others advanced loan to six borrowers on the basis of forged deed of guarantee and thereby put the Bank to a great loss. Thus, it was submitted that the petitioner by abusing his official position advanced loan to the borrowers fraudulently and dishonestly and thereby committed offence as alleged and hence, the trial court was absolutely justified in rejecting the prayer for discharge. Upon hearing counsel appearing for the parties, it does appear that on one hand, the stand which has been taken on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner was not responsible in any manner for the commission of offence as alleged as the petitioner had sanctioned loan to the borrowers even on the basis of fake deed of guarantees but he was not supposed to verify the documents before sanctioning the loan, rather it was the Loan Officer who was supposed to verify the documents and also to make enquiry in other matters as per the guidelines issued by the Bank and it is only on the recommendation made by the Loan Officer, the loan was sanctioned to eight borrowers and thereby he did not commit any illegality whereas case of the prosecution is that this petitioner in connivance with other Bank officials and other borrowers sanctioned loan to the borrowers by ignoring guidelines issued by the Bank and after accepting fake deed of guarantees whereby it has been found that six persons who had stood guarantors for different firms to whom loan was sanctioned were the fake persons as they had died much earlier. It is also the case that in case of sanction of loan to some of the borrowers, it is the petitioner who had accepted the deed of guarantees and that the petitioner in case of some of the borrowers had enhanced credit limit without sticking to the guidelines and without ensuring the capabilities of the borrower to make re-payment and thus, the circumstances which are appearing in the case are sufficient to put the person on trial as it is only during trial, it would come out as to whether or not the petitioner in conspiracy with other Bank officials and the borrowers had advanced loan to them. So far the submissions relating to re-payment of the entire loan amount by some of the borrowers are concerned, hardly it will have bearing on the case as it has never been shown to have been deposited before the case was lodged. Thus, I do not find any illegality with the order passed by the learned trial court whereby prayer for discharge has been rejected. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed.