Shatrughan Sharma v. The State Of Bihar, Through Vigillance, Patna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48710 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-266 Year-2020 Thana- ARWAL District- Jehanabad ====================================================== SHATRUGHAN SHARMA S/O LATE DUDHESHWAR SHARMA @ DUDHESHWAR SINGH R/o village- Faridpur, P.S.- Parasbigha, DistrictJehanabad ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar, through Vigilance, Patna Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Shivam For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Rana Vikram Singh, Spl. P.P. Vigilance ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 31-08-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
As per the prosecution case, an audio clip was made viral in which one police officer of Arwal P.S. was found talking about bribe. Later on, it was detected that the voice in audio clip was of this petitioner.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case. It is further submitted that the audio clip does not show that petitioner ever demanded any money from accused, Rajendra Mistri and the said audio clip has not been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48710 of 2021(4) dt.31-08-2022 2/2 scientifically examined till date and only on suspicion petitioner has been made accused in this case. On the other hand, Mr. Rana Vikram Singh, learned Spl. P.P., Vigilance vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against this petitioner that he demanded bribe from accused, Rajendra Mistri. There is also allegation of acceptance of Rs. 1,000/- each by this petitioner two times. The call detail report of mobile of this petitioner clearly speaks that petitioner had talks with Rajendra Mistry and Sumant Kumar nine times. Considering the nature of accusation and gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) BKS/- U T