Order 1. This application is directed against the order dated 11.7.2012 passed in R.C. No.07(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 a complaint was lodged with the C.B.I by Sr. Manager, Punjab National Bank, Kishoreganj Branch alleging therein that this petitioner and also one Anil Kumar Sinha while working as Manager and Deputy Manager respectively entered into a conspiracy with M/s. Krishna Hosiery, M/s. Jogesh Narain Singh, M/s. Vindhya Metals, M/s. Pareek & Brothers and M/s. Glazed in the year 2002-03 and in pursuance of the said conspiracy, the petitioner and Anil Kumar Sinha processed, sanctioned and disbursed loan in the name of the firms as stated above dishonestly and fraudulently by abusing their respective official position, as a result of which the Bank suffered loss to the tune of Rs.44.83 lacs. On receiving the said complaint, C.B.I lodged a case as R.C.No.07(A) of 2006 under Sections 120B,420, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The matter was taken up for investigation. During investigation it got transpired that the accused Kumar Digvijay Singh called his cousin Manoj Kumar Singh @ Appu from his native village on the pretext that he will arrange a job for him. When he came, it was told to him by Kumar Digvijay Singh that one staff namely, Kameshwar Prasad of Punjab National bank, Kishoreganj Branch has been absenting from the duty and hence, he would be substituted on his place. Thereupon at the behest of the said Kumar Digvijay Singh, said Manoj Kumar Singh @ Appu opened one current account in the name of Kameshwar Prasad claiming himself as proprietor of M/s. Pareek & Brothers by impersonating himself as Kameshwar Prasad and it was Jagdish Narain Singh who dishonestly and fraudulently introduced Manoj Kumar Singh @ Appu as Kameshwar Prasad. Thereafter the said Manoj Kumar Singh @ Appu at the behest of Kumar Digvijay Singh submitted a loan application to the Punjab National Bank, Kishoreganj Branch for extending cash credit limit of Rs.10 lacs in the name of M/s. Pareek & Brothers. One Tirathmani Devi stood guarantor. Thereupon the accused Anil Kumar Sinha processed the application and made recommendation dishonestly and fraudulently for grant of loan. One Tirathmani Devi stood guarantor. Thereupon the accused Anil Kumar Sinha processed the application and made recommendation dishonestly and fraudulently for grant of loan. The address given in the form was that of Kameshwar Prasad, the real proprietor of M/s. Pareek & Brothers who had left Ranchi much earlier. On such recommendation, the petitioner, the then Branch Manager in conspiracy with each other sanctioned cash credit limit upto Rs.10 lacs. Thereafter at the instance of Kumar Digvijay Singh, one Anjani Kumar Singh opened one current account at Central Bank of India, Upper Bazar, Ranchi in the name of M/s. Anjani Enterprises. The said Anjani Kumar Singh drew cheque on the fake account of M/s. Pareek & Brothers and got the amount withdrawn and paid it to Kumar Digvijay Singh. On account of non-payment of the loan amount, outstanding rose to Rs.13 lacs and odd as against M/s. Pareek & Brothers. Further it got transpired during investigation that one Smt. Meena Singh, wife of Kumar Digvijay Singh, proprietor of M/s.Vindhya Metals submitted an application before Punjab National Bank, Kishoreganj Branch for cash credit facility upto Rs.6 lacs and also for term loan. The application was processed by the co-accused Anil Kumar Sinha and the cash credit facility and term loan were sanctioned by the petitioner. In the said process of having cash credit facility, one Nagendra Singh at the instance Kumar Digvijay Singh put his signature over the deed of guarantee as Om Prakash Agarwal,who had already sold the land. The said sale deed was submitted as co-lateral security for securing cash credit facility. The said bank guarantee deed was accepted by Anil Kumar Sinha and also by this petitioner dishonestly and fraudulently. Mr.P.P.N.Roy, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that during investigation nothing was found wrong with the matter relating to disbursement of loan to M/s. Krishna Agency and M/s.Glazed and therefore, those firms have not been charge sheeted. The said bank guarantee deed was accepted by Anil Kumar Sinha and also by this petitioner dishonestly and fraudulently. Mr.P.P.N.Roy, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that during investigation nothing was found wrong with the matter relating to disbursement of loan to M/s. Krishna Agency and M/s.Glazed and therefore, those firms have not been charge sheeted. It was further pointed out that M/s. Vindhya Metal had availed the cash credit facility and got term loan sanctioned but it has already paid off the entire amount and that so far the matter relating to impersonation is concerned, the said Manoj Kumar Singh @ Appu was identified by one of the employee of the said Branch and, therefore, there was no occasion for this petitioner to raise any doubt over the matter and that moreover, the petitioner was supposed to sanction the loan on the recommendation made by Deputy Manager, Anil Kumar Sinha which the petitioner did and thereby the petitioner did not commit any offence whatsoever. As against this Mr.Khan, learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I submitted that the investigation made in this case has revealed the manner in which the accused persons including the petitioner in conspiracy with each other sanctioned cash credit facility to the firm, real proprietor of which had never made application for sanction of case credit facility, rather it was done by doing act of impersonation and not only that even the documents which were submitted as co-lateral securities were forged and that during investigation, it has also found that most of the papers have been verified by the petitioner and has submitted a report for sanctioning loan which clearly indicates involvement of this petitioner in the nefarious activities of the accused persons. Upon hearing learned 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 in the commission of offence as alleged as the petitioner had sanctioned cash credit limit to the borrowers on the application of fake person but that person had been identified by the Bank employee and thereby there was no reason to raise any doubt over the identity of the person applied for cash credit limit whereas case of the prosecution is that this petitioner in connivance with Deputy Manager and also accused persons sanctioned loan to a fake person and on the forged documents which were submitted as co-lateral securities and all these were done in conspiracy with each other. Thus, the circumstances which are appearing in this case are sufficient to put the petitioner on trial and only during trial, it would come out as to whether or not the petitioner in conspiracy with other Bank officials and the borrowers had sanctioned cash credit limit. 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.