Ashok Kumar v. The State Of Bihar Through Vigilance

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.70717 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-27 Year-2020 Thana- VIGILANCE District- Patna ====================================================== Ashok Kumar Son of Devprayag Singh Resident of House No. 03/10, Indrapuri, P.S.- Patliputra, Distt.- Patna, Bihar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar through Vigilance Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Hemant Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Rana Vikram Singh, Spl PP Vigilance ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 25-02-2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special P.P. for the Vigilance (Law Officer) Mr. Rana Vikram Singh.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 13(2), 13(1) (b) of the P.C. Act and Sections 109 and 120B Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that comprehensive evaluation of movable and immovable asset of the petitioner discloses a total sum of Rs.1,62,60,597/-, after substracting savings amount of Rs.60,00,000/- which comes to Rs. 1,02,60,597/- as disproportionate assets.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70717 of 2024(2) dt.25-02-2025 2/3

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner during the course of investigation co-operated with the investigating agency and appeared as and when required and the Vigilance never felt the need of arresting the petitioner. It is also submitted that charge sheet has been submitted, as such, no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner to jail when Vigilance during the course of investigation did not arrest the petitioner. It is next submitted that petitioner will not abscond rather will co-operate in the trial to prove his innocence.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Vigilance does not dispute the said submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner during the course of investigation co-operated in the investigation and the Vigilance never felt the need of arresting the petitioner.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Trial Court within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70717 of 2024(2) dt.25-02-2025 3/3 each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Special Case No. 26 of 2020, arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No.27/2020, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.

7. One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be Tej Prakash, the nephew of the petitioner.

8. It is made clear that if the learned Trial Court comes to a conclusion that petitioner after obtaining anticipatory bail is trying to delay the trial in any manner, in that event, the learned Trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bond of the petitioner after recording reason.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/- U T