Manoj Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar Through Superintendent Of Police Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.8569 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -96 Year- 2017 Thana -VIGILANCE District- PATNA ======================================================

1. Manoj Kumar Singh S/o late Satyadeo Singh R/o Village +Post- Fakuli, P.S. Mufasil, District Chapra.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Superintendent of Police Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Patna .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. (Dr.) Amitesh Chandra Mr. Satyendra Prasad For the Vigilance : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 06-03-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Vigilance Investigation Bureau. The petitioner has been in custody since 15.11.2017 in connection with Special Case No. 40 of 2017 arising out of Vigilance Patna P.S. Case No. 96 of 2017 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 7/13/(2) read with 13(1)(d)of the P.C. Act.

The allegation against the petitioner is of having been caught red-handed while accepting bribe by the Vigilance Investigation Bureau.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present case is motivated by one Ram Naresh Rai who was previously in the same Thana who had been given false report in a case which has been instituted against him. It is further submitted

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8569 of 2018 (3) dt.06-03-2018 2/3 that the petitioner failed to do so and placed the true picture and the said Ram Naresh Rai has engineered the said trap. Diary in the present case was called for which has since been received.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Vigilance has after perusal of the case dairy submitted that the pre-trap and post-trap memo which forms part of the case dairy clearly indicates that the petitioner was caught red-handed and, therefore, he is not entitled to the privilege of bail. He further submits that the petitioner has been in custody for nearly four months and, therefore, such case may not be entertained by this Court for grant of regular bail as the petitioner was caught red-handed and the solution in which the petitioner's hands were dipped had turned pink and the number of the notes which were mentioned in the pre-trap memo when matched with the numbers of the notes which were recovered from the hands of the petitioner found to be the same. The petitioner was a responsible government officer and is clearly guilty of corruption as he was caught red-handed in the trap.

Having heard the entire facts and circumstance of the case, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to this petitioner. It is accordingly rejected.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8569 of 2018 (3) dt.06-03-2018 3/3 The petitioner shall, however, be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge which shall be considered by the Court below on its own merit. (Anjana Mishra, J) Saif/- U T