IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.4006 of 2010 RAKESH RANJAN, Son of Sri Arun Kumar Singh, resident of Village-Nakhaspind, P.S. Malsalami, District-Patna ---------------- Petitioner Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 02 22-02-2010 A supplementary affidavit is filed enclosing therewith certain documents, particularly Annexure-7, which is resolution of the Government, on behalf of the petitioner. Keep it on record. Heard Mr. L.N. Das , learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Arvind Kumar, I/C , Spl. P.P. for the Vigilance. The petitioner is in jail since 10.11.2009 in connection with Spl Case No.86 of 2009 /04 of 2010 arising out of Vigilance Case No.108 of 2009 for offences under Sections 7/13(2) with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner while pressing the bail petition has vehemently argued that the petitioner, in view of Annexure-7 , i.e. Govt. Resolution dated 5.10.2006, does not come within the purview of public - 2 - servant and, as such, the petitioner cannot be termed as a public servant and whole prosecution case is not sustainable on this ground. While pressing his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis only for a period of two years. It was also argued that there was no occasion for demanding bribe since no bill was pending. He further submits that the complainant was a wage-earner and he had received his wages till the date of trap. On these grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Vigilance, Investigation Bureau, submits that since the petitioner was appointed on contract basis for a period of two years and the petitioner was to be paid from the Government exchequer, he will come within the purview of public servant, as defined under Section 2(c)(i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He further submits that the bill was pending at the time of trap. However, it was vehemently controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. - 3 - I have perused the F.I.R. and the ordersheet. It is a case of demand and acceptance of bribe by a public servant. While hearing a bail petition, this Court is not required to go deeply to examine as to whether the petitioner was a public servant or not. Learned Spl.P.P. submits that the petitioner was being paid from the Government exchequer and he is a public servant. I am satisfied, only for the purpose of deciding this bail, that at the relevant time the petitioner was a public servant and he was trapped while he was taking illegal gratification of Rs.2000/- from the complainant. Immediately after the trap, the bribe money was also recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner and ,accordingly, post trap memorandum was prepared Learned counsel for the Vigilance Investigation Bureau, submits that in this case after investigation, chargesheet has already been submitted. In view of the fact that the petitioner was caught red-handed and after investigation, chargesheet has already been submitted, I do not think it desirable to extent the privilege of bail to the petitioner at the moment. However, since the petitioner is in custody from the date of his - 4 - arrest,i.e. 10.11.2009 it would be appropriate to direct the Vigilance Investigation Bureau, to take immediate steps to supply the entire police paper to the accused petitioner and, thereafter the trial court is directed to initiate the trial and conclude the same within a specific period of three months from today, failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to renew his prayer for bail. With the above observation, the application for bail is rejected. NKS/- ( Rakesh Kumar, J)