Jitendra Kumar @ Jitendra Kumar Singh @ Jitendra Singh v. The State Of Bihar Through Vigilance, Bihar, Patna.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.71674 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-442 Year-2020 Thana- AURANGABAD TOWN DistrictAurangabad ====================================================== JITENDRA KUMAR @ JITENDRA KUMAR SINGH @ JITENDRA SINGH S/o Harihar Singh Resident of Village - Kona, P.S. - Rafiganj, District - Aurangabad.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The state of Bihar through Vigilance, Bihar, Patna. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr.Bhaskar Shankar For the State :

Mr.Uma Shankar Prasad Singh, APP For the Vigilance Mr. Anil Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 16-01-2023 The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the Vigilance.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest for the offences alleged under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, registered in connection with Special Case No. 30 of 2020 arising out of Aurangabad (Town) P.S.Case No. 442 of 2020. Co-accused Ravindra Kumar Singh is a revenue karamcharit and the petitioner is his assistant. As per allegation, a video clip became viral, in which the petitioner was demanding the bribe for co-accused Ravindra Kumar Singh. Ravindra Kumar Singh was also seen with the petitioner in that video clip.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioner is not his assistant, rather he is a private person.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71674 of 2021(5) dt.16-01-2023 2/2 He has submitted further that the provision of Section 7 of the P.C.Act is not attracted against the petitioner. On the other hand, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the Vigilance have submitted that the petitioner was demanding money for co-accused Ravindra Kumar Singh, who was a revenue karamchari and anticipatory bail of Ravindra Kumar Singh has been rejected by this Court. They have submitted further that the petitioner is absconding and the case is still under investigation.

In my view, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail, which is hereby rejected.

If the petitioner surrenders before the court below and makes a prayer for regular bail, the same shall be considered and disposed of without being prejudiced by this Court.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) HR/- U T