Meghnath Ram @ Meghnath Prasad v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48277 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-26 Year-2025 Thana- VIGILANCE District- Patna ====================================================== Meghnath Ram @ Meghnath Prasad S/O Late Shivdayal Ram R/o - Lofarana, P.S - Barhara, District - Bhojpur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar Patna 2.
Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Bihar Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Y.C. Verma, Sr. Advocate :
Mr. Ghanshyam Tiwary, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Shantanu Kumar, APP For the V.I.B.
:
Mr. Anil Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 28-11-2025 Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the Vigilance Investigation Bureau.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. The allegation on the petitioner, who was the Investigating Officer of the case, lodged by the granddaughter of the informant is that he had demanded for illegal gratification of Rs.10,000/- which was complained before the Vigilance and after verification the allegation was found correct and amount of Rs.5,000/- was recovered from the possession of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48277 of 2025(5) dt.28-11-2025 2/3 the petitioner on the date of trap and the petitioner was caught red handed.
4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a police official and has been implicated in the present case on account of collusion of the complainant and the vigilance officials for extraneous reasons. It has further been submitted that he was arrested by the stage managed trap proceedings and he never made any demand of illegal gratification. It has also been submitted that the petitioner, in any view of the matter, has remained in custody since 09.05.2025 and the stage of the case as would also be evident from the report which is available on the records would show that the charges have already been framed on 29.10.2025. Further, the petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the trial and has no criminal antecedent.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the vigilance vehemently opposed grant of bail on the ground that the present case is a trap case and demand, acceptance and recovery has been proved by the vigilance.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and also considering the fact that the petitioner has remained in custody since 09.05.2025 with no criminal
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48277 of 2025(5) dt.28-11-2025 3/3 antecedent and not only charge-sheet has been submitted but also charges have been framed, let the above named petitioner, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), North Bihar, Muzaffarpur/concerned Court below in connection with Special Case No.15 of 2025 airsing out of Vigilance Case No.26 of 2025, subject to the following condition(s) :
(i) The petitioner shall remain physically present before the learned Special Judge (Vigilance) on each and every date during trial and in the event of failure on two consecutive dates without sufficient reasons, his bail bonds shall be liable to be cancelled by the learned Court concerned.
(Soni Shrivastava, J) anand/- U T