← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./9040/2018bail granted

Geeta Kumari v. The State Of Bihar Through The Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Bihar, Patna

2018-03-05Justice Smt. Anjana Mishra4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.9040 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -107 Year- 2017 Thana -VIGILANCE District- PATNA ====================================================== Geeta Kumari W/o Sri Ranjan Kumar Sharan, R/o Anand Sri Apartment , Flat No. 2DA, Block-A, Lohia Path, P.S.- Ruapspur, District- Patna-14. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar Through The Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Bihar, Patna.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raghav Prasad, Adv. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Kedar Singh, A C to Mr. Ramakant Sharma(L.O.,I/C. Vigi) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 05-03-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State and learned counsel for the Vigilance The petitioner has been in custody since 30.11.2017 in connection with Special Case No. 357 of 2017 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 107 of 2017 for the offence registered under Sections 7, 13(1) (d) 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Diary of the present case was called for which has since been received.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire case against the petitioner is false and fabricated and has been occasioned on account of vendetta and for the purpose of

wrecking vengeance on her as she has been trying to discipline the informant as well as his close associates, who have now become the seizure list witnesses. In support of his contention, petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to page -41 of the bail application wherein it appears that some dispute was existent between the petitioner and the informant, who was being supported by the two seizure list witnesses and who had also been proceeded against for bad behaviour. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to another first information report dated 19.11.2016 bearing Sultanganj P.S. Case NO. 23 of 2016 registered under Sections 341, 594, 323 and 354A of the Indian Penal Code in which a categorical allegation has been made against Arbind Kumar, who is a seizure list witness.

He, thus, submits that the entire case is to wreck vengeance on her and the three persons, in connivance with each other implicated the petitioner in the alleged occurrence. The seizure which is alleged to have been made was from the register lying on the table and not from the conscious possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the Vigilance has submitted that the case has been found to be true and now charge sheet has also been submitted against her. He however, submits that apart from the allegations, there are no further materials in the case diary.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and that the investigation is complete, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Additional Sessions Judge-XI-cum-Special Judge, Vigilance, 1st, Patna in connection with Special Case No. 357 of 2017 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 107 of 2017, subject to the following conditions:-

(1) One of the bailors will be his own blood relative, preferably, father, mother, brother, sister and/or his wife/husband.

(2) The petitioner shall not indulge himself in any similar offence till conclusion of the trial.

(3) The petitioner shall remain physically present in Court on each and every date during trial and in the event of his failure on two consecutive dates without sufficient reasons his bail bonds shall be liable to be cancelled by the learned Court concerned.

(4) The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation, if not already concluded, and

make himself available as and when so required and in case of failure, the State shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

(Anjana Mishra, J) Jagdish/- U T