Ramchandra Singh v. The State Of Bihar Through The Inspector General Of Police Vigilance, Cabinet Vigilance Department
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.14610 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -21 Year- 2016 Thana -C.B.I CASE District- PATNA ======================================================
1. Ramchandra Singh Son of late Shivnarayan Singh Resident of Village Ramdiri, PS Matihani, District Begusarai, Ex G.M. District Industry Department, District Bhagalpur, Mohalla- Mayaganj, PS Barari, District Bhagalpur..... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Through The Inspector General of Police (vigilance), Cabinet Vigilance Department, Government of Bihar, Patna ..................... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Madan Jeet Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ramakant Sharma (Law Off. Vig) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 16-05-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing Vigilance.
The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 21 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 7 / 13 (2) read with 13 (i) d of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Allegedly, the petitioner being General Manager, District Industry Office, Bhagalpur demanded bribe of Rs. 5,000/- for clearing the dues salary of the complainant Shatrughan Thakur which after verification was found true and accordingly, the petitioner was arrested accepting the bribe amount of Rs. 5,000/- and chemical test also shows the positive result. Submission is of false implication and that the
prosecution story appears not probable and reliable, it is not believable that to clear the dues of Rs. 1750/- any one will demand Rs. 5,000/- as bribe, the petitioner was to superannuate after two days but he has been implicated in this case and he is suffering from blood pressure and heart disease but he has been implicated in this case and chargesheet has already been submitted and there is no chance of tampering with the prosecution evidence. Learned Assistant Counsel for the vigilance opposes the prayer of bail.
In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering that chargesheet has already been submitted and there is no chance of tampering with the prosecution evidence, the petitioner above named is directed to be released on bail on execution of bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Vigilance II-cum- Additional Sessions Judge, Patna in Special Case No. 06 of 2016 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 21 of 2016, subject to the conditions that one of the bailors must be a near relative and another having sufficient immovable property within the territorial jurisdiction of the court concerned and the petitioner shall remain present on each and every date during trial and the default on two consecutive dates on his part
without any reason shall disentitle the petitioner from privilege of bail.
(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T