Yaqoob Ali Ansari v. The State Of Bihar Through S. P. Vigilance Investigation Bureau Patna, Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.9367 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -105 Year- 2017 Thana -C.B.I CASE District- MUZAFFARPUR ======================================================
1. Yaqoob Ali Ansari, S/o Mehdi Hussain Ansari, R/o Vill+P.O.- Ekderwan, P.S.+Dist- Gopalganj.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Through S. P. Vigilance Investigation Bureau Patna, Bihar.
.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mohammad Sufyan, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ramakant Sharma (L.O.,Inc.Vigi.) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 30-03-2018 Heard.
Petitioner is permitted to correct the prayer portion.
Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 7,13(2) read with Section 13(1)(D) of the P.C.Act,1988.
According to FIR, the petitioner, who is Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, was trapped while accepting Rs.50,000/- as bribe on 24.11.2017 for sending report for release of the seized vehicle of allegation maker Rajan Jha.
Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in fact referred vehicle was seized on 03.11.2017 vide Annexure-3 of violation of the mandates of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules and the same was released
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9367 of 2018 (3) dt.30-03-2018 in favour of Rajan Jha on deposit of fine on 22.11.2017 itself vide Annexure-4. Therefore, allegation that some report was to be sent to the court by the petitioner is palpably false. Petitioner is in custody since 25.11.2017. Investigation of the case is complete and petitioner is ready to cooperate with the trial. He further submits that the post trap memorandum would reveal that the recovery of bribe money was from beneath the bed of the petitioner and not from his hands. Learned counsel for the Vigilance opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that the verification report would reveal that the demand was made prior to release of the said vehicle.
Considering the entire facts aforesaid, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Court below where the case is pending in connection with Special Case No.45 of 2017/Vigilance Police Station Case No.105 of 2017, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall fully cooperate with the trial of the case, failing which the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bond of the petitioner.
(Birendra Kumar, J) Nitesh/- U T