Shishir Roy v. The State Of Bihar Through The Vigilance Investigation Bureau Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24179 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-4 Year-2026 Thana- VIGILANCE District- Patna ====================================================== Shishir Roy S/o Radha Kant Roy R/o Village - Krishnanagar, P.S - Saharsa, District - Saharsa Presently posted as Accountant, Local Engineering Division, Khagaria ... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar through the Vigilance Investigation Bureau Patna Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, Sr. Advocate :

Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate For the Vigilance :

Mr. Arvind Kumar. Spl.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 15-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 10.01.2026 in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 04 of 2026 for the offence punishable under Section 7(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that one Sanjay Kumar, who is grade IV contractor having registration in the name and style of Kalyani Construction. He was awarded a contract from Local Engineering Works Division, Khagaria and entered into an agreement vide Agreement No. 16F2/2024-2025 and allotment amount of the same was Rs.10,50,000/-. He executed the work and Local Engineering Works Division also

2/4 gave transfer certificate on 18.06.2025. Then he met the accountant of the division on 03.01.2026 in his office and asked about payment of his bill as he has completed the work. But the payment has not been made on which Shishir Roy, accusedpetitioner told that one challan of sand which he has submitted in bill is in photocopy. Even if it is genuine of photocopy it cannot be passed and if he wants to get his bill passed on that photocopy, he has to first pay his commission then he has asked how much he has to pay then in clear words twenty thousand rupees was demanded for passing the bill. Since he does not want to give the bribe he lodged the complaint before Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Patna.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per the allegation as alleged in the FIR, the petitioner has demanded Rs.20,000/- from the informant for clearing the bill of the informant and Rs.18,000/- was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. After that, raid was conducted in the house of the petitioner where altogether Rs.3,56,000/- was also recovered from the house of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner next submits that although recovery has been made in pre-trap and

3/4 post-trap memorandum but the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case and police after investigation submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner and petitioner is in custody since 10.01.2026 and since the charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner so there is no need to keep the petitioner in custody.

5. The learned Spl.P.P. for the Vigilance has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum-Special Judge (Vigilance) Bhagalpur in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 04 of 2026, 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 court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the

4/4 witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

iii. And further condition that the court below shall 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 court below 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) Gaurav Sinha/- U T