Abu Obaid v. The Managing Director, Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.32152 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -51 Year- 2016 Thana -C.B.I CASE District- MUZAFFARPUR ====================================================== Abu Obaid, son of Md. Majid Hussain, resident of village- Sirsi, Police Station-Khodavandpur, District-Begusarai, at present A.S.I. of Kazai Mohammadpur Police Station, District- Muzaffarpur .... .... Petitioner

Versus

The Managing Director, Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Patna .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ramakant Sharma(L.O.,I/C Vig.) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 18-08-2016 Heard Sri Vivekanand Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ramakant Sharma, learned Senior Law Officer, Vigilance Department.

The petitioner, who is in custody since 13.05.2016 in Special Case No.24/2016 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No.51/16 registered for the offence under Sections 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988, has prayed for grant of bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated by the Vigilance Department on an allegation of recovery of some bribe amount from the possession of the petitioner. He submits that at the relevant time, the petitioner was posted as Assistant Sub Inspector, Kazi Mohammadpur.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.32152 of 2016 (2) dt.18-08-2016 2/3 Sri Ramakant Sharma, learned counsel for the Vigilance Department, opposing the prayer for bail of the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was apprehended while accepting illegal gratification. After interception, Rs.20,000/- bribe money was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. He submits that currency notes were tallied from the pre-trap amount.

Considering the facts and circumstances, I do not find any ground to grant bail to the petitioner. The prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected.

However, since the petitioner is in custody, while rejecting the prayer for bail of the petitioner, it is desirable to observe that the trial court may take steps for early conclusion of the case. It was informed that in this case chargesheet has already been submitted. Accordingly, Vigilance Investigation Bureau is required to complete the process under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure within a period of 15 days from today. Thereafter, trial court is required to take up the matter at least twice in a week. It is the duty of the Vigilance Investigation Bureau to produce witnesses, as and when required by the trial court, without any delay. The Court expects that the case may be concluded preferably within a period of four

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.32152 of 2016 (2) dt.18-08-2016 3/3 months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) NKS/- U