Dr. Dibanshu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar Through The Director General, Vigilance, Patna

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.28111 of 2017 (3) dt.21-07-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.28111 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -104 Year- 2016 Thana -VIGILANCE District- PATNA ====================================================== Dr. Dibanshu Kumar Son of late Ramanand Sinha Resident of VillageKatahani Bagh Ratanpur, P.S. Chapra town, District Saran. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar Through The Director General, Vigilance, Patna .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vipin Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rama Kant Sharma(L.O,I/C Vigi) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 21-07-2017 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Vigilance Police Station Case No. 104 of 2016, disclosing offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 477(A), 409 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 13(2), 13(1)(D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is general and omnibus allegation against this petitioner and no specific overt act is attributed to him. In fact, altogether seven cases of similar nature have been lodged against the petitioner and out of seven, in five cases the petitioner has been granted anticipatory vide Cr. Misc. Nos. 27252 of 2017, 27296

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.28111 of 2017 (3) dt.21-07-2017 of 2016 along with Cr. Misc. No. 27975 of 2017 and Cr. Misc. No. 29230 of 2017 along with Cr. Misc. No. 29458 of 2017 by the different Benches of this Court. It has also been submitted that there is no chance of fleeing away of the petitioner during the investigation or trial if he is allowed to be released on anticipatory bail. Hence, the petitioner deserves the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the Court below within six weeks, 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 learned Special Judge, Vigilance, North Bihar, Muzaffarpur, in connection with Vigilance Police Station Case No. 104 of 2016, subject to the condition laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(Arvind Srivastava, J.) Brajesh/- U T