Satendra Singh v. The State Of Bihar Through The Department Of Vigilance Investigation Bihar,Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5830 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-32 Year-2018 Thana- VIGILANCE District- Patna ====================================================== Satendra Singh son of Late Baidnath Singh resident of village and P.OSaitha,P.S-Sonhan, Block-Bhabhua, Distt.-Kaimur at present posted as Panchayat Secretary of Kurari Gram Panchayat, Block-Rampur, Distt.- Kaimur at Bhabua ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State Of Bihar through The Department Of Vigilance Investigation Bihar, Patna Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Jitendra Kumar Roy, Adv.

For the Vigilance :

Mr. Ajay Mishra, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 29-03-2019 This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Vigilance Patna P.S. Case No. 32 of 2018, disclosing offences under Sections 13, 13(2) readh with Section 13(1) (d) of the P.C. Act, 1988.

Allegation against the petitioner, who happens to be the Panchayat Secretary, is that the petitioner and the B.D.O. has demanded Rs.1,15,000/- for sanction of the scheme of Rs.23,00,000/-.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had already sent the scheme to the B.D.O. for approval and his signature is there, which will appear from the F.I.R. itself and as such there is no occasion to petitioner to

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5830 of 2019(3) dt.29-03-2019 2/2 demand money and further submission is that as a matter of fact, he had lodged a complaint against the Mukhiya, which will appear from Annexure-2, as such petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case.

Heard learned A.P.P. as well as learned counsel for the vigilance, they have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner stating that the petitioner is also named in the F.I.R. and there is allegation against the petitioner also of demand of money.

Having heard both sides, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, rather he should surrender before the court below within a period of six weeks and make prayer for regular bail, which will be considered on its own merit, without being prejudice by order of this Court, if possible, to be disposed of on the same day.

Accordingly, this application is disposed of. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) Amjad/- U T