JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent C.B.I. 2. This petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 02.05.2019 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 461 of 2019 (R.C. No. 08(S)/2015-EOW-R), whereby the discharge application filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the learned court of Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR was registered alleging therein that the complainant UCO Bank, is having its Zonal Office at Sainik Bazar, Main Road, Ranchi and is carrying on it business of Banking throughout India and inter alia, its branch offices at Jamshedpur. It has been alleged that borrowers namely Sri Mohd. Shadab Khan, proprietor of M/s M.K Engineering Works, son of late Mohd. Mustaque Khan, resident of House No. 67, Green Bailley, Koolie Road, Police Station Azadnagar, Mango, Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum, conspired with each other and got the loan sanctioned from their Jamshedpur main branch by depositing the fake and forged title deeds at the time of sanction of loan. In furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy Sri Mohd. Shadab Khan got Cash Credit Limit sanctioned to the tune of Rs. 50,000,00/- on 20/21/03/2007 subsequently got enhanced up to Rs. 6,00,00,000/- on 29/12/2012. Similarly he also got sanction of Term loan of and Rs. 87,00,000/- on 20/21/03/2007 and subsequently enhanced up to Rs. 8,034,7000/- on 29/12/2012. Mohd Shahid Khan who is brother of the borrower and proprietor of another firm M/s Temcon had given his personal guarantee. Since the borrower had committed default in repayment of loan amount (TL + CC) as such the account was declared as NPA on 02/11/2013. Thereafter bank initiated proceedings under SARFAESI Act, 2002 and moved an application u/s 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act before the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur for physical possession of the mortgaged property. Thereafter the Deputy Commissioner got an enquiry conducted with respect to the mortgaged property from Circle Officer, Jamshedpur, who accordingly submitted his report stating that by committing forgery the land had been mortgaged with the bank and thereafter Deputy Commissioner vide letter as contained in memo 1115(B) fof/k] fnukad 27-08-2015 directed the bank to lodge an FIR against the person concern. The bank also got an investigation conducted through their empanelled advocate with regard to mortgaged property and accordingly vide letters dated 13.11.2015 & 06.11.2015 was reported that the mortgagor had no title over the property. The present outstanding in the account (TL + CC) was Rs. 151837733/- which was exclusive of interest from date 01/11/2013. The account became Non Performing Asset in their books with effect from 02/11/2013. Thus, for the said criminal conspiracy and for the acts of omission and commission of the suspects, the bank had sustained a wrongful loss of Rs.151837733/- (+ interest w.e.f. 01/11/2013). Considering the facts circumstances stated above, it was requested that suitable and action might be taken against Sri Mohd. Shadab Khan, proprietor of M/s M.K Engineering, Sri Mohd. Azaz Khan, Sri Mohd. Shahid Khan and Others. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR. She further submits that no material has been collected to suggest any complicity of this petitioner with regard to the alleged allegation. She submits that the allegations are of the year 2004 and the petitioner has not joined as an Advocate at that time and he has joined in the year 2005 as an Advocate. She submits that the only allegation against the petitioner is that he has drafted the sale deed with regard to the land in question. She further submits that the said sale deed was approved by the Deputy Commissioner in T.A. Misc. Case No. 9 of 2008 -2009, T.A. Misc Case No. 10 of 2008-09, T.A. Misc. Case No. 11/ 2008-09, T.A. Misc. Case No. 12/ 2008-2009 and T.A. Misc. Case No. 13/ 2008-2009. She submits that apart, there is no allegations against the petitioner. T.A. Misc Case No. 10 of 2008-09, T.A. Misc. Case No. 11/ 2008-09, T.A. Misc. Case No. 12/ 2008-2009 and T.A. Misc. Case No. 13/ 2008-2009 approved under section 49(2) after compliance of the provisions of section 49 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act by the Deputy Commissioner. She submits that the case of the petitioner is fully covered in light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation v. K. Narayana Rao, (2012) 9 SCC 512 and she refers to paragraph nos.24 and 30 of the said judgment which are quoted below: “24. She submits that the case of the petitioner is fully covered in light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation v. K. Narayana Rao, (2012) 9 SCC 512 and she refers to paragraph nos.24 and 30 of the said judgment which are quoted below: “24. The ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are that there should be an agreement between the persons who are alleged to conspire and the said agreement should be for doing of an illegal act or for doing, by illegal means, an act which by itself may not be illegal. In other words, the essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act and such an agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both and in a matter of common experience that direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely available. Accordingly, the circumstances proved before and after the occurrence have to be considered to decide about the complicity of the accused. Even if some acts are proved to have been committed, it must be clear that they were so committed in pursuance of an agreement made between the accused persons who were parties to the alleged conspiracy. Inferences from such proved circumstances regarding the guilt may be drawn only when such circumstances are incapable of any other reasonable explanation. In other words, an offence of conspiracy cannot be deemed to have been established on mere suspicion and surmises or inference which are not supported by cogent and acceptable evidence. 30. Therefore, the liability against an opining advocate arises only when the lawyer was an active participant in a plan to defraud the Bank. In the given case, there is no evidence to prove that A-6 was abetting or aiding the original conspirators.” 5. One of the accused Kailash Kumar Agarwal has been discharged by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. Rev. No. 406 of 2018 by order dated 20.11.2021. She submits that the CBI has moved before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against that order in S.L.P (Cr.) No. 407 of 2020 which was dismissed by the order dated 07.01.2022. On this ground, she submits that the petitioner may kindly be discharged. 6. Rev. No. 406 of 2018 by order dated 20.11.2021. She submits that the CBI has moved before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against that order in S.L.P (Cr.) No. 407 of 2020 which was dismissed by the order dated 07.01.2022. On this ground, she submits that the petitioner may kindly be discharged. 6. The said argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner has been resisted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent C.B.I. on the ground that the petitioner is a practicing advocate of civil court Jamshedpur and fraudulently and dishonestly drafted the sale deed and in view of that the charge sheet is submitted against the petitioner. 7. It is an admitted position that the petitioner is a practicing advocate of civil court Jamshedpur and in the charge sheet following has been alleged: “Accused Deepak Kumar Bagty an advocate of Civil Court, Jamshedpur fraudulently and dishonestly drafted the sale deeds aforesaid disclosing the purchaser accused Shadab Khan as absolute owner in all possible ways with power to dispose of the same by sale, gift, lease or mortgage which is not permissible under CNT Act as the land aforesaid are covered under the Act.” 8. The said draft was approved by the Deputy Commissioner under section 49 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act in T.A. Misc Case No. 10 of 2008-09, T.A. Misc. Case No. 11/ 2008-09, T.A. Misc. Case No. 12/ 2008-2009 and T.A. Misc. Case No. 13/ 2008-2009 and apart from that there is nothing against the petitioner who happened to be a practicing advocate of civil court Jamshedpur. The allegations are there against the officers of the bank for entertaining the third term loan and this allegation is not against the petitioner in the charge sheet. 9. In the case of Central Bureau of Investigation v. K. Narayana Rao (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed the details as to what are the details of criminal conspiracy and what type of act will attract criminal conspiracy in paragraph no. 24 which is quoted hereinabove. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and looking to the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the observation made herein the role of the petitioner is scrutinized. 24 which is quoted hereinabove. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and looking to the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the observation made herein the role of the petitioner is scrutinized. The Court finds that there is no evidence of the act to defraud the bank and what has been recorded in the charge sheet as quoted hereinabove, it is crystal clear that there is no evidence to conclude that the petitioner has taken active part and there was meeting of minds between this petitioner and other co-accused. This aspect is missing in the charge-sheet. 11. In view of above reasons and analysis the order dated 02.05.2019 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 461 of 2019 (R.C. No. 08(S) 2015-EOW-R), whereby the discharge application filed by the petitioner has been rejected is set aside. 12. The petitioner is discharged in R.C. No. 08(S)/2015-EOW-R, pending in the court of learned Sub Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi. 13. This petition is allowed and disposed of. 14. It is made clear that so far other accused persons are concerned, this Court has not interfered and the learned court will proceed in accordance with law.