Pappu Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar Through The Vigilance

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.75829 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-118 Year-2017 Thana- C.B.I CASE District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Pappu Kumar Yadav Son of Sri Kameshwar Prasad Yadav Resident of Village-Rampur Jurawan,P.S. Vaishali,Distt.-Vaishali at Hajipur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State Of Bihar Through The Vigilance ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anita Kumari, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anjani Kumarl.O., I/C Vigi.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 25-01-2019 Heard the parties.

The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Patna Vigilance P.S.Case No. 118 of 2017, registered for offences punishable under Sections 13 ( 2) read with Sections 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. As per F.I.R., allegation against the petitioner, who happens to be the Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat, is that he has accumulated the huge disproportionate amount as against his real income.

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Annexure-1 shows that the assets of full family member has been counted, which comes to Rs. 1,35, 65, 933/- and there is no charge of misappropriation of amount of his income and he has falsely been implicated in this case, moreover investigation

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.75829 of 2018(3) dt.25-01-2019 2/2 is still pending. It has also been submitted that there is no positive finding of his income.

Heard learned A.P.P. as well as learned counsel for the Vigilance, who opposes the prayer for bail on the ground that there is direct allegation of misappropriation of income and huge amount of discrepancies, which will appear from Annexure-1.

Having heard both sides and in view of the facts and circumstances as discussed above, the case of the petitioner is concerned, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer of anticipatory bail is rejected with a direction to the petitioner to surrender before the court below within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of order and make prayer for regular bail, the same shall be considered by the learned court below on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order of this court.

This application is accordingly dismissed.

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