← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./64894/2019rejected

Sandip Kumar Thakur v. The State Of Bihar

2019-10-24Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.64894 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-30 Year-2019 Thana- C.B.I CASE District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== SANDIP KUMAR THAKUR Son of Rama Shankar Thakur Resident of Village - Babuke Bhatakan, P.O.- Narendrapur, P.S.- Andar, District- Siwan and at present Posted as Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Parsa, DistrictSaran (Chhapra) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

THE STATE OF BIHAR.

2.

The Standing Counsel for Vigilance North Bihar, Muzaffarpur Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anant Kumar 1 For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anant Kumar 1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 24-10-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 30 of 2019, Special Case No.20 of 2019 for the offence under Sections 7(a) and 12 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Amended 2018).

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is of clean antecedent, is innocent and has not committed any offence. In fact, the petitioner was Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Parsa District-Saran, Chhapra and he has never demanded any money from the informant for any purpose rather he has

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64894 of 2019(2) dt.24-10-2019 2/2 falsely been been implicated in this case. Hence the petitioner may be enlarged on regular bail.

Learned counsel for the state has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioner has demanded Rs. 2,00000/- for allotment of the house under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojna out of which Rs. 50,000 has been paid by the informant to the petitioner. Moreover the petitioner has been caught while taking Rs.18000/- as bribe from the informant.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of regular bail of this petitioner is rejected.

However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) brajesh/- U T