Ramesh Pandey v. The State Of Bihar Through The D. G. P., Vigilance Investigating Bureau, Bihar, Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.38183 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -58 Year- 2015 Thana -C.B.I CASE District- MUZAFFARPUR ====================================================== Ramesh Pandey S/o Late Suresh Pandey, resident of village - Basantpur Bakhari, P.S. Sakra, District Muzaffarpur at present working as Block Agriculture officer, Kalyanpur, District Samastipur .... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar through the D. G. P., Vigilance Investigating Bureau, Bihar, Patna .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Hemant Kumar Karan For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ramakant Sharma(L.O.I/C Vig.) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 20-09-2016 Heard Sri Hemant Kumar Karan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kedar Singh, learned Junior Counsel to Sri Ramakant Sharma, Senior Counsel for Vigilance Department. The sole petitioner, apprehending his arrest in Vigilance P.S. Case No.58/2015, corresponding to Special Case no.24 of 2015 registered for the offence under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case, there is no involvement of the petitioner. According to learned counsel for the petitioner,

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38183 of 2016 (3) dt.20-09-2016 2/2 inspection was to be done by the District Agriculture Officer and this petitioner was shown as Incharge. He submits that there is nothing to implicate the petitioner, whereas learned counsel for the Vigilance Department submits that under a conspiracy, in the name of subsidy the Government fund was misappropriated, even one vehicle was shown to be transferred to two persons whereas in the preliminary enquiry, it was found that all those persons were closely related to each other. In this case, all public servants had conspired to facilitate misappropriation of government fund. In view of nature of accusation, it is not a case for grant of anticipatory bail. The petition stands dismissed. (Rakesh Kumar, J) NKS/- U T