Anil Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar Through Vigilance

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.19905 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -18 Year- 2016 Thana -C.B.I CASE District- PATNA ======================================================

1. Anil Kumar Singh, son of Sri Bageshwar Singh, resident of villageParora, P.S.- Sahebpur Kamal, District- Begusarai. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Vigilance .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nilesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ramakant Sharma(L.O.I/C Vig.) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 20-05-2016 I.A. No. 1070 of 2016 was filed stating therein that the petitioner is acute patient of diabetes and is in jail and his sugar level has been enhanced, he is suffering from wound also. Prayer has been made to hear this Criminal Miscellaneous as early as possible.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the Vigilance.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Special Case No. 05 of 2016 arising out of Vigilance Case No. 18 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 7/13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Allegedly, the petitioner being the Circle Officer of Karha Circle demanded bribe of Rs. 40,000/- from the complainant Mohan Kumar Yadav, the chowkidar to clear his arrear dues amounting to Rs. 2 lac, which on verification was

found true and during trap, the petitioner was apprehended when he accepted the bribe amount of Rs. 20,000/- and chemical test also shows positive result.

Submission is of false implication and that the petitioner has been made victim of the circumstances, the chowkidar bringing the Vigilance Officials in collusion got implicated the petitioner, charge sheet has already been submitted and there is no chance of tampering with the prosecution evidence, the petitioner by remaining in custody since 19.02.2016, now has been sufficiently penalized, to which the learned counsel for the Vigilance opposes the prayer of bail.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, the petitioner above named is directed to be released on bail on execution of bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, Vigilance-II, Patna in connection with Special Case No.05 of 2016 arising out of Vigilance Case No. 18 of 2016, subject to conditions that one of the bailors must be near relative and another having sufficient immovable property within the territorial jurisdiction of the court concerned and the petitioner shall remain present on each and every date during trial and the default on two consecutive dates on his part without any reason shall disentitle the petitioner from privilege of bail.

Accordingly, I.A. No. 1070 of 2016 is also hereby disposed of.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J.) Amit/- U T