Patna High CourtCR. MISC./41891/2019dismissed

Moti Lal Singh v. The State Of Bihar Through Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Patna.

2019-07-09Mr. Justice Vikash Jain2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.41891 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-12 Year-2019 Thana- VIGILANCE DistrictPatna ====================================================== MOTI LAL SINGH, aged about 64 years, male, Son of late Bachu Singh Resident of Village - House No.3, Kailash Enclave, Sheopuri, P.S.- Shastri Nagar, Dist.- Patna.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar through Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Patna. Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Binod Kumar Sinha, Advocate.

For the Vigilance :

Mr. Anjani Kumar, Sr. Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 09-07-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 109 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code registered in connection with Vigilance Case No. 12 of 2019 corresponding to Special Case No. 11 of 2019.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and in any event the present F.I.R. has been instituted after considerable delay in the year 2019 alleging acquisition of disproportionate assets by the petitioner during the check period from 02.08.1977 to 28.02.2012. It is further submitted that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41891 of 2019(2) dt.09-07-2019 2/2 petitioner has been regularly appearing pursuant to grant of bail by order dated 27.10.2010 in Cr. Misc. No. 19488 of 2010 pertaining to Special Case No. 89 of 2009 registered under Section 7/13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

4. Learned counsel for the Vigilance opposes the anticipatory bail petition, submitting that the petitioner was caught red handed taking a bribe of Rs. 5,000/-, for which Special Case No. 89 of 2009 had been lodged as aforesaid. It is submitted that thereafter inquiry with regard to the assets of the petitioner was made which was considerably time-consuming and after gathering sufficient material to indicate acquisition of disproportionate assets by the petitioner, the present F.I.R. has been lodged.

5. Having regard to the nature of accusations and the gravity of the offence alleged, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The anticipatory bail petition stands dismissed.

(Vikash Jain, J) Ibrar//- U T