Authority: High Court of Judicature at Patna

Order Date: 27-08-2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Manoj Kumar Singh (son of Ravindra Singh, residing at Kaju Bagan, Hehal, Ratu Road, P.S. Pandra, Ranchi, Jharkhand; former residence Anand Vihar Colony, Bailey Road, P.S. Rukanpura, Patna, Bihar) and Vijay Pratap Singh (son of Ravindra Singh, same residence details), and Mani Devi @ Raj Mani Singh (wife of Manoj Kumar Singh, same residence details).
  • Opposite parties: The State of Bihar; Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) through Superintendent of Police, Anti‑Corruption Branch, Bihar; UCO Bank through its Zonal Manager, Patna.
  • Criminal Miscellaneous No. 44248 of 2026 (Manoj & Vijay) and No. 44092 of 2026 (Mani Devi) arise from PS Case No. 19, Year 2008, Thana‑C.B.I. Case, District Patna.
  • Offences alleged under IPC Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 and Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 Sections 13(2) & 13(1)(d).
  • Prosecution alleges senior UCO Bank managers (Shri J.C. Nandi and Shri D.C. Jain) colluded with directors of Shivam Planners & Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (Manoj Kumar Singh, Vijay Pratap Singh, and Mani Devi) and empanelled valuers/legal advisors to fraudulently sanction and enhance a cash‑credit facility.
  • Initial sanction: Rs 80 lakhs in February 2004 against collateral at Mouza Jalalpur, Danapur (later found to be government land with no realizable value).
  • Enhancement to Rs 2 crores in March 2005 based on additional collateral at Rukunpura and Danapur, allegedly supported by forged title deeds.
  • Further enhancement to Rs 2.80 crores in 2006 using properties in District Nalanda, mis‑represented as commercial but actually agricultural land with lower valuation.
  • The loan turned Non‑Performing Asset on 31‑12‑2007 with outstanding liability of approximately Rs 317 crore (excluding interest), causing wrongful loss to UCO Bank.
  • Petitioners contend they are private individuals, not bank officials, and had no role in valuation or sanction processes; they claim readiness to liquidate the outstanding amount.
  • All three petitioners have been in custody since 01‑04‑2026 and have no prior criminal antecedents; Mani Devi’s counsel undertook to pay Rs 1 crore to the bank within a year.
  • The State’s A.P.P. and CBI opposed bail, asserting material misrepresentation and deliberate fraud.

Final Outcome

  • The Court, referencing the Supreme Court judgment in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI (2026 INSC 115) concerning socio‑economic realities of women, granted bail to petitioner Mani Devi @ Raj Mani Singh.
  • Bail conditions for Mani Devi:

1. Bail bond of Rs 15,000 with two sureties of equal amount; one surety must be a close family member.

2. Deposit of Rs 10 lakhs to the informant/Bank at execution of bail bond; remaining Rs 90 lakhs to be paid in five equal installments within one year.

3. Appear on every trial date; no absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient cause.

4. No tampering with evidence or intimidation of witnesses.

  • Bail for Manoj Kumar Singh and Vijay Pratap Singh was rejected; the Court noted they are directors who made material misrepresentations to defraud the bank.

Topics: Bank Fraud, Bail Decision