Pawan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar Through The Director General, Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Government Of Biha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.68030 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-53 Year-2018 Thana- CHAKAND District- Gaya ====================================================== Pawan Kumar, Son of Anil Paswan, Resident of Village- Mahesi, P.S. Sultanganj, District- Bhagalpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar through the Director General, Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Government of Bihar, Patna.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Devendra Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ajay Mishra (AC to, I/C Vigi.) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 17-12-2018 The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Chakand P.S. Case No. 53 of 2018, registered for offences punishable under Sections 217, 221, 222, 120 (B) and Section 51 of Bihar Prohibition of Excise Act and Sections 7/8/13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Petitioner happens to be Sub Inspector of Bihar Police and allegation against him is that he released two accused persons with liquor recovered from after taking bribe and further Rs. 1,37,200/- was recovered from his room. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has falsely been implicated in this case and so far recovery of Rs. 1,37,200/- is concerned, the same is of property sold by him. It has also been submitted that he has been implicated in

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.68030 of 2018(4) dt.17-12-2018 2/2 this case at the instance of informant Police Inspector, with whom the petitioner was not at good terms. Further submission is that petitioner has been in judicial custody since 12.07.2018.

Learned counsel for the Vigilance opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the prima facie, a serious case is made out against the petitioner and he does not deserve the privilege of bail.

Having heard both sides, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of accusation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. This application is accordingly dismissed.

However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as soon as possible.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sunilkumar/- U T