IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.28394 of 2011 Deepak Kumar Lal @ Dipanshu son of Sh. Dhrub Narayan Chaudhary, Resident of Chaudhary Compound, Ram Bagh, Police Station- Mithanpura, District- Muzaffarpur …Petitioner Versus The State Of Bihar through Department of Special Vigilance Unit …OP ----------- 3/ 24.11.2011 Supplementary affidavit on behalf of the petitioner is being filed. Let it be kept with the record. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Vigilance. The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in a case instituted for the offence under section 13(2) read with section 3(i) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Prosecution case is that the petitioner’s father, who belongs to Bihar Administrative Service, amassed huge assets disproportionate to his known sources of income by adopting corrupt and illegal means between 01.01.1998 to 31.03.2008. The petitioner is not named in the First Information Report. Subsequently, during investigation two lockers standing in the name of the petitioner either singly or jointly were searched and around three crores unaccounted cash was recovered from there. He was subsequently chargesheeted for having abetted his father in acquiring disproportionate assets. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been paying income tax regularly and no objection had ever been raised and it is all accounted cash. Second submission is that co- accused similarly placed have been granted bail by this Court vide 2 Cr. Misc. No.15974 of 2011. Counsel for the Vigilance submits that even if the income tax was paid by the petitioner, it does not absolve him of the responsibilities of the present case. Secondly, co-accused, who have been granted bail, were done so because they were holders of Benami properties and there was no recovery of cash from their possession. Having considered the rival submissions, this Court is of the view that recovery of three crores in cash from the lockers of the petitioner suggests that there was conspiracy of the petitioner with his father in concealing the disproportionate assets acquired by him in his official capacity. The unusual practice of keeping such huge amount of cash and the lockers also suggest that the dealing was not above board. As for grant of bail to the co-accused, I find that there is no mention that there was recovery of any cash from their possession and, therefore, their case is not similar to one at hand. In view of such, the application is dismissed. JA/- (Anjana Prakash,J.)