Bishnudeo Singh v. The State Of Bihar Through Vigilance Bihar, Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21567 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-434 Year-2018 Thana- LALGANJ District- Vaishali ====================================================== BISHNUDEO SINGH, Son of Sri Pranpati Singh, Resident of Village - Nargada, P.s.- Krishnagarh, Distt.- Bhojpur (Ara). ... ... Petitioner

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH VIGILANCE BIHAR, PATNA ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur with Mr.Nilesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Atul Chandra For the Vigilance : Mr. Deepak Sahay Jamuar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 14-05-2019 Petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in connection with Lalganj P.S. Case No. 434 of 2018 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(A)(D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Prosecution story, in short, is that the informant gave a written statement to the Officer Incharge, Lalganj Police Station to lodge case but he is not accepting the same on one way or the other and lastly on 10.10.2018 he sent application through Registered post to S.H.O., Lalganj and Superintendent of Police, Vaishali and when no action was taken the informant met with

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21567 of 2019(2) dt.14-05-2019 2/3 S.H.O. who threatened him and demanded Rs.20,000/- and thereafter he gave Rs.10,000/- to S.H.O. and rest amount of Rs.10,000/- was given to the petitioner. However, the informant was again threatened, then he again approached the police but again money was demanded and he was also threatened of dire consequence.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the whole allegation is false and concocted and as a matter of fact the informant brought one Ex-MLA and started putting pressure to the police for arresting accused persons and the dispute relates to land.

Heard learned counsel for the Vigilance Department, who has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail stating that allegation against the petitioner is of accepting of bribe in lodging case. In view of above facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. He may move for regular bail, which

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21567 of 2019(2) dt.14-05-2019 3/3 shall be considered on its own merit, without being prejudiced by this order.

With the above direction, this application is dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) spal/- U T