Gajendra Singh v. The State Of Bihar Through The Ssp Vigilance, Bihar Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.49055 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -389 Year- 2016 Thana -KADAMKUAN District- PATNA ====================================================== Gajendra Singh Son of Late Paltan Singh Resident of Village- Veer Kunwar Singh Colony, P/s- Hajipur, District- Vaishali. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar Through The SSP Vigilance, Bihar Patna .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Alok Kumar Alok For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rama Kant Sharma(L.O,I/C Vigi) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 16-12-2016 Heard Sri Alok Kumar Alok, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rama Kant Sharma , learned Senior Law Officer, (Vigilance) as well as Sri Vibhuti Ranjan Sonbhadra, learned counsel who informs that he has filed "Vakalatnama" on behalf of the informant in Registry today.

The petitioner /Sub Inspector of Police who was at the relevant time posted in Kadam Kuan Police Station has approached this court for grant of anticipatory bail in Kadamkuan P.S. Case No. 389 of 2016 registered for offence under Section 419 & 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that informant of the present case is none else but he is accused in

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.49055 of 2016 (2) dt.16-12-2016 2/2 Kadam Kuan P.S. Case No. 367 of 2016. He submits that since being Police Officer petitioner was taking action against the informant and other accused persons a false case was instituted against the petitioner making allegation as if petitioner was demanding gratification.

Sri Rama Kant Sharma , learned Senior Law Officer (Vigilance ) as well as learned counsel for the informant has drawn my attention to the F.I.R. and submits that in the F.I.R. there is specific accusation against the petitioner. Keeping in view the seriousness of the allegation against the petitioner as well as the fact that he is the sole F.I.R. named accused, there is no reason to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail.

The petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) Praful/- U T