Pranav Kumar @ Kumar Pranav v. The State Of Biahr

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23204 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-29 Year-2023 Thana- VIGILANCE District- Patna ====================================================== Pranav Kumar @ Kumar Pranav S/O- Late Mithilesh Singh, R/O- VillageArijpur, P.S.- Kudhani, Dist.- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar.

2.

The Vigilance Department, Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance:

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Krishna Kant Singh, Advocate For Vigilance Deptt.

:

Mr. Arvind Kumar, Spl. PP For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Pawan Kumar Chaurasia, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 26-04-2024 Heard Mr. Krishna Kant Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Arvind Kumar the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Vigilance Department and Mr. Pawan Kumar Chaurasia, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2.

Petitioner seeks regular bail who is in custody since 13.02.2024 in connection with Vigilance Case No. 29 of 2023, FIR dated 17.08.2023, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 7(a), 7(c)/12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

3.

According to the prosecution case, the land of the informant was encroached by boundary land holder and for the

2/4 same he filed a BLDR Case No. 01 of 2022-23, before the DCLR (West), Muzaffarpur. It is further alleged that DCLR ordered the CO, Kudhani for the measurement of the said land and if found encroached, then remove the encroachment. It is further alleged that when no action was taken for eight months, the informant contacted the CO, Kudhani namely, Pankaj Kumar, who asked the informant to talk with one Pranav and the said Pranav demanded that if the petitioner pays a bribe of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only then his work will be done and when the informant informed the CO about the said bribe, he also affirmed it.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that as per allegation levelled in the FIR, the Circle Officer, Kudhani has received the receipt of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) and petitioner has been made accused in the present case only on the ground that petitioner is working in the Circle Officer's office and co-accused person, who is the Circle Officer, has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.02.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 79621 of 2023 and the petitioner is in judicial custody since 13.02.2024.

3/4 5.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the other hand has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

6.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the fact that petitioner has clean antecedent and the coaccused person has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, let the petitioner, above-named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Muzaffarpur, in connection with Vigilance Case No. 29 of 2023, subject to the following conditions:

(i). Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the trial Court and shall remain physically present as directed by the trial Court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the trial Court.

(ii). If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

(iii). And further condition that the trial Court shall

4/4 verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case, at any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the trial Court shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Shahnawaz/- U T