Vinayak Pandey v. The State Of Bihar, Vigilance Investigation Bureau

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.45545 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -78 Year- 2016 Thana -VIGILANCE District- PATNA ====================================================== Vinayak Pandey, Son of Brihaspati Pandey, resident of Village- Dilipur, P.O.:- Dilipur, P.S.- Bhagwan Bazar, District- Bhojpur, At present posted as District Programme Officer (Estab.) Buxar.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ramakant Sharma(L.O.,I/C. Vigi) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 06-12-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Special Case No.43 of 2016 arising out of Vigilance P.S.Case No.78 of 2016 registered under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13 (2) and 13

(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that he has not been named in the F.I.R. but his name has surfaced on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused. No incriminating article has been recovered from his conscious possession or physical possession which is evident from Annexure-2. The I.O. has falsely made the petitioner accused

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45545 of 2017 (6) dt.06-12-2017 2/2 which appears from Annexure-3. He further submits that the petitioner was not concerned in any manner with such appointments which is evident from Annexure-5. He further submits that the petitioner is not appointing authority who only directed the B.E.O. Rajpur to take steps in the light of circulars and provision of law issued by the department since the B.E.O., Rajpur had written a letter to the petitioner for giving guidelines for compliance of the order of Appellate Authority which is evident from Annexures- 8 & 9.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, let the above named petitioner be released on bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, Vigilance-1st, Patna, in Special Case No.43 of 2016 arising out of Vigilance P.S.Case No.78 of 2016 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) AnilKrSinha/- U