JUDGMENT : (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) 1. The instant application has been filed under Sections 483 and 484 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of bail in connection with R.C. Case No. 06(S)/2015-EOWR for the offence committed under Section 120 B read with sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the court of learned Special Judge-II, CBI (other than AHD Scam Cases), Ranchi. 2. It has been contended by Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. 3. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that it is a case of non-payment of loan amount in consequence thereof the loan account has become Non-Performing Asset (NPA). As such, there is no evidence of any fraud, since, after completion of all documentation the loan was sanctioned. 4. It has been contended that the co-accused persons, who are the partners and the guarantors have been directed to be released on bail by the order of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The co-accused, namely, Deepak Kumar Bagty has been granted privilege of anticipatory bail vide order dated 16.11.2017 passed in A.B.A No.2304 of 2017, co-accused, namely Javed Khan has been granted bail vide order dated 02.07.2024 passed in B.A. No.9651 of 2023, Shadab Khan has been granted bail vide order dated 15.05.2019 passed in B.A. No.4186 of 2019, co-accused, namely, Birbar Das has been granted bail vide order dated 04.09.2019 passed in B.A. No.4582 of 2019, co-accused, namely and Subhashish Sinha has been granted privilege of anticipatory bail vide order dated 23.10.2018 passed in A.B.A No.4774 of 2018 by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 5. It has been contended that the charge-sheet has already been submitted in the present case and the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 02.12.2022. 6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, based upon the aforesaid premise, has submitted that the case of the petitioner is identical to that of the aforesaid co-accused persons and, as such, instant bail application may be allowed so that the petitioner be released from judicial custody. 7. While on the other hand, Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel for the opp. party has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. 8. It has been contended that this is the second attempt by the petitioner for grant of bail. 7. While on the other hand, Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel for the opp. party has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. 8. It has been contended that this is the second attempt by the petitioner for grant of bail. The first one has been dismissed as withdrawn and the present application is second one. The petitioner by producing false documents has cheated the bank and took the loan amount and, as such, it is a case of grabbing the public money by fraud. However, the learned counsel has not disputed the fact that other similarly situated co-accused persons have been granted privilege of anticipatory bail/regular bail by the order of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 9. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties. 10. It needs to mention here that vide order dated 25.04.2025 the Punjab National Bank (in short, Bank) has been made a party in the present proceeding. 11. Mr. P.A.S. Pati, the learned counsel appears for the Bank and submitted that a proceeding has been initiated against the accused persons for recovery of loan amount under the Debt Recovery Act, 1993. The case is at the stage of recovery and the efforts is being taken by the Bank for recovery of the loan amount in question. 12. This Court has taken into consideration the aforesaid fact that the other similarly situated co-accused persons have been granted privilege of anticipatory bail/regular bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court as also taking into consideration the period of custody since the petitioner is in judicial custody since 02.12.2022, is of the view that the instant bail application deserves to be allowed. 13. Accordingly, the instant bail application stands allowed. 14. In consequence thereof, the petitioner named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge-II, CBI (other than AHD Scam Cases), Ranchi in connection with R.C. Case No. 06(S)/2015-EOWR with the condition that the petitioner shall co-operate in the trial, failing which, the learned trial court is at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.