Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.7801 of 2012 ====================================================== Vijay Kumar Jha .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The Union of India through Central Bureau of Investigation, Patna Branch, Patna. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== With Criminal Miscellaneous No.14277 of 2012 ====================================================== Apurba Sarkar .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar through the CBI .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 07/ 07-08-2012 Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and the CBI. The petitioners being the Assistant Commandant and Sub-Inspector of SSB Force are apprehending their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under [STATUTE] and Section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(c)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. On the instruction of the superior officers two raiding teams were constituted under the leadership Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7801 of 2012 (7) dt.07-08-2012 2/5 of Mr. Anand Kumar (non-petitioner) and Mr. V.K. Jha (petitioner) when two trucks loaded with betel nuts were seized between Jogbani and Mirganj and were brought to the campus of SSB battalion, Bathnaha when subsequently one of the trucks was allowed to go from the SSB camp, Bathnaha loaded with betel nuts worth Rs.24 Lakhs. It is alleged against Anand Kumar and V.K. Jha (petitioner) that they did not prepare any seizure memo or made entry in the GD Register of SSB Camp, Bathnaha regarding interception of the two trucks and arresting of the drivers and cleaners of the truck. Moreover, no entry was made in RP gate in/out register and Quarter guard register of SSB Camp while it is alleged against petitioner Apurba Sarkar that on his oral direction as instructed by Anand Kumar the guard permitted one of the trucks to go out of the SSB camp. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner Vijay Kumar Jha (V.K. Jha) that he retired from service in September, 2010 when the FIR was lodged on 14.10.2010 and he has not been departmentally proceeded. Moreover, the accusation of allowing the truck to go from the camp is specifically Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7801 of 2012 (7) dt.07-08-2012 3/5 alleged against petitioner Apurba Sarkar and the charge- sheet has already been submitted. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner Apurba Sarkar that he was not in the raiding team and this fact has not been controverted by learned counsel appearing for the CBI and the occurrence is of 18.11.2009 and initially the release of the truck was tried to be concealed by the raiding party, but when the higher officials took notice of the same then in order to save the skin of the raiding team petitioner Apurba Sarkar has been framed which resulted into registration of the present case on 14.10.2010. It is also submitted that the delayed lodging of the case and illegality was detected very next day of the seizure have been admitted by one of the raiding team’s leader Anand Kumar. It is submitted by learned counsel for the CBI that the petitioner Vijay Kumar Jha was leading one of the team and non-preparation of the seizure memo nor any entry in various registers, prima facie, constitute the culpability of the petitioner whereas it is submitted against petitioner Apurba Sarkar that he has been held Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7801 of 2012 (7) dt.07-08-2012 4/5 guilty during the departmental proceeding along with one Subhrajit Mittra. Considering the rival contention of the parties, particularly, the admitted position that petitioner Vijay Kumar Jha was leading one of the raiding team and has failed to prepare the seizure memo, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner Vijay Kumar Jha. Let the learned court below consider the prayer for regular bail of petitioner Vijay Kumar Jha without being prejudiced by the order of this Court keeping in view the delayed lodging of the FIR, he has already been retired, investigation is complete and it is not the case of the CBI that he has not cooperated during investigation. Considering the admitted position that petitioner Apurba Sarkar was not in the raiding team and there is no documentary proof with regard to the fact that on his oral direction the truck was allowed to escape, let petitioner Apurba Sarkar be released on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned court below Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7801 of 2012 (7) dt.07-08-2012 5/5 within a period of twelve weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, CBI III, Patna in connection with Special Case No. 11 of 2010 (RC 20(A) of 2010), subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. DKS/ (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)

Applicable IPC Section: 409

Statute Text:
Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. Criminal breach of trust by public servant or by banker, merchant or agent, etc. Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.