Jawahar Choudhary Mukhiya @ Jawahar Choudhary v. The Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Bihar, Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23731 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-50 Year-2019 Thana- C.B.I CASE District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== JAWAHAR CHOUDHARY MUKHIYA @ JAWAHAR CHOUDHARY Son of Late Jamindar Choudhary Resident of Village and Post Office-Siura, P.S.- Patori, District-Samastipur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE VIGILANCE INVESTIGATION BUREAU, BIHAR, PATNA Patna. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr. Advocate For the Vigilance :

Mr. Rana Vikram Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 21-10-2020 Heard Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rana Vikram Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance through video conferencing. Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Special Case No. 34 of 2019 arising out of Vigilance (Patna) P.S. Case No. 50 of 2019 registered for the offence punishable under Section 7(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Amended 2018).

This is second attempt for grant of regular bail on behalf of the petitioner inasmuch as earlier the bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court by an order dated 04.02.2020 passed in Cr. Misc. 5802 of 2020.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23731 of 2020(3) dt.21-10-2020 2/3 The allegation against the petitioner as per the First Information Report is that the petitioner was caught red handed while receiving bribe of Rs.1,16,000/-.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected taking into consideration the fact that the investigation was going on and now the investigation has completed. The charge sheet has been submitted and cognizance of the offences has been taken. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Vigilance submits that the case is fixed for supply of police paper to the petitioner for framing of charge.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the materials on record, the fact that cognizance of the offences has been taken against the petitioner and the case is fixed for supply of police paper for framing of charge, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner after framing of charge.

Accordingly, let the petitioner, above named, be released on regular bail, after framing of charge, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned 6th Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Special Judge,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23731 of 2020(3) dt.21-10-2020 3/3 Vigilance (P.C. Act), Muzaffarpur, subject to the condition that the petitioner will be well represented on each date in the trial and if he fails to do so on two consecutive dates, his bail bonds will be liable to be cancelled.

It is made clear that at the time of furnishing bail bonds all the parties shall follow the guidelines regarding social distancing.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) S.Ali/- U T