Patna High CourtCR. MISC./40556/2017dismissed

Hari Kishore Prasad v. State Of Bihar Through Vigilance Patna

2017-09-04Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar Sinha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.40556 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -42 Year- 2017 Thana -VIGILANCE District- PATNA ======================================================

1. Hari Kishore Prasad, son of Late Laxman Roy, Resident of VillageKoderkutt, P.S.- Choradano, District- East Champaran. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. State of Bihar Through Vigilance Patna .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravi Ranjan For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ramakant Sharma (L.O.,Inc.Vigilance) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 04-09-2017 Heard the parties.

This application is for grant of regular bail in connection with Vigilance P.S.Case No.42 of 2017 , registered for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 8 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Allegation against the petitioner is that he was trapped by the Vigilance Department and he was apprehended taking Rs.10,000/- as bribe from the informant. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that all the allegations are false and concocted, as the signature of the petitioner was not obtained. The petitioner is in custody for about three months. It has also been submitted that one of the coaccused has been granted bail by this Hon'ble Court, vide order

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40556 of 2017 (2) dt.04-09-2017 2/2 dated 19.8.2017 passed in Cr. Misc. No.38394 of 2017. Heard learned A.P.P. and the learned counsel for the Vigilance Department. The learned counsel for the Vigilance Department has submitted that the other accused person was not a Government Employee rather a man of the petitioner as such he has granted bail, whereas the petitioner has been arrested after a trap laid by Vigilance, while accepting bribe. Having heard both sides and in view of the facts and circumstances, as stated above, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, however, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the petitioner.

With the aforesaid observation, this application is dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) chn/- U T