JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. T.N. Verma, learned counsel appearing of the A.C.B. 2. Since the facts involved in both these applications are same and similar and they are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The petitioners have prayed for grant of anticipatory bail, as they are apprehending their arrest in connection with Vigilance P. S. Case No. 42 of 2013 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 4. The prosecution story in brief is that in relation to Bhutgarhia-Harladih Cooperative Credit Society although this is a due upon the Cooperative Society but the then Managing Director of Dhanbad Central Cooperative Bank Shri Ramod Narayan Jha had sanctioned the loan of Rs. 31,34,000/- to the said Cooperative Society on 26.07.2008 which was alleged to be misappropriated. In relation to Gopalichak Colliery Cooperative Credit Society it has been alleged that the loan amount worth Rs. 8,10,000/- has been recovered and paid to the Dhanbad Central Cooperative Bank but same has not been adjusted in the account of the Cooperative Bank for which Nand Kishore Mishra and Ramod Narayan Jha were responsible. It has further been alleged that the then Managing Director of Dhanbad Central Cooperative Bank Ramod Narayan Jha and Sheshnath Singh on the basis of forged documents have given loan amount of Rs. 40,00,000/-. The Senior Accounts Officer, Dhanbad had not audited the account of Gopalichak Colliery Credit Society and with respect to Bhutgarhia, Harladih-Boragarh and Tisra Colliery audit has been done till 2003 which did not mention about the illegalities committed by Tantra Nath Jha. Further allegation has revealed that in Gopalichak Colliery Credit Cooperative Society an amount of Rs. 85,91,310/- in North Tisra Colliery an amount of Rs. 63,25,278/- in Bhutgarhia- Harladih Colliery an amount of Rs. 10,22,053/- and in Boragarh Colliery an amount of Rs. 60,78,841/- totaling Rs. 2,20,17,482/- have been misappropriated by submitting forged documents. It has been alleged that the officers who had sanctioned and approved the loan amount are involved in payment and sanction of loan by way of forged and fabricated documents. 5. 63,25,278/- in Bhutgarhia- Harladih Colliery an amount of Rs. 10,22,053/- and in Boragarh Colliery an amount of Rs. 60,78,841/- totaling Rs. 2,20,17,482/- have been misappropriated by submitting forged documents. It has been alleged that the officers who had sanctioned and approved the loan amount are involved in payment and sanction of loan by way of forged and fabricated documents. 5. Based on the aforesaid allegation Special Case No. 45 of 2013 was instituted under Sections 406, 420, 409, 467, 468, 471, 477 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 13(2) and 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 6. It has been stated by Mr. Rahul Kumar, leaned counsel appearing for the petitioners that so far as the petitioner-Parshuram Chauhan in A.B.A. No. 4217 of 2015 is concerned, he is an employee of M/s. BCCL and the loan recovery agent of Gopalichak Colliery Cooperative Credit Society as well as treasurer of North Tisra Colliery. Learned counsel submits that so far as the said petitioner is concerned, an amount of Rs. 7,66,339/- has already been recovered out of a total disbursed loan of Rs. 40,00,000/- which falsifies the allegation that only Rs. 30,000/- was recovered. 7. Learned counsel submits that during the tenure of the petitioner a substantial amount of the loan was recovered. It has further been stated that some of the co-accused namely Ramod Narayan Jha and Tantra Nath Jha have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in A.B.A. No. 144 of 2015 and A.B.A. No. 277 of 2015. So far as the petitioner Akhilesh Kumar in A.B.A. No. 4233 of 2015 is concerned, it has been stated that he was posted as Managing Director in Dhanbad Central Cooperative Bank from 04.01.2000 to 30.06.2005. It has further been submitted that the petitioner has general control over the administration of the Bank and he has negligible role with respect to recovery of loan. 8. Mr. T.N. Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the A.C.B. has opposed the prayer made by the petitioners and has stated that an enquiry was conducted into the affairs of the Dhanbad Central Cooperative Bank as well as various Cooperative Societies which were functioning and it has come in course of enquiry that the petitioners were responsible for sanctioning loan in an unscrupulous manner and had not taken appropriate steps for the recovery of the said loan. 9. 9. It appears that an enquiry was conducted on the complaint made by a fictitious person namely Birendra Singh in which the petitioner Parshuram Chauhan was attributed of misappropriating an amount of Rs. 27,500/- recovered from one loanee in Gopalichak Colliery Cooperative Credit Society. Although it has been alleged against him that so far as the North Tisra Colliery is concerned, an amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- were disbursed and the recovery was to the tune of only Rs. 30,000/- but from the information received under the Right to Information Act the recovery is said to be to the tune of Rs. 7,66,339/-. The Managing Committee of the Bank had intimated to the Managing Director that non deposit of the amount of Rs. 27,500/- as alleged has been found false so far as the said petitioner is concerned. As regard the petitioner Akhilesh Kumar is concerned, he was the Managing Director of the Dhanbad Central Cooperative Bank for the period 04.01.2000 to 30.06.2005. It also appears that the petitioner is being prosecuted on account of being the Managing Director of the Bank at the relevant point of time since although the members of the Society are employees of M/s. BCCL and, therefore, it can best be said that there was negligence on the part of the petitioner for recovery of the loan disbursed. 10. The culpability of the petitioner Akhilesh Kumar does not seem to be in very specific terms and in fact no complaint has been made by any loanee regarding any forgery which has been committed. Some of the co-accused persons as indicated above have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court. 11. On consideration of the aforesaid facts, therefore, these applications stand allowed and the petitioners in both the anticipatory bail applications are directed to surrender in the court below within a period of four weeks from today and on such surrender, they shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 42 of 2013, corresponding to Special Case No. 45 of 2013, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.