IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.3039 of 2011 SURESH CHANDRA SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE ----------- 2 14.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the vigilance. Allegedly, petitioner was caught raid handed accepting rupees three thousand as bribe from one Dharamshila Kumari who had made complaint to vigilance officials that the petitioner was demanding rupees three thousand for making favorable order in her favour in respect of a show cause issued to her by District Programme Oficer. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that at the relevant time the petitioner was working as Head Clerk in the concerned office and he had not authority to pass order in favour of the allegation maker in respect of her show cause. It is further contended by him that as a matter of fact rupees five hundred had been given to each of the Sevikas to perform Jhulan Scheme, but subsequently, almost all the Sevikas refused to perform the aforesaid work and, thereafter, the aforesaid Sevikas were directed by the C.D.P.O. to deposit rupees five hundred each for performance of the aforesaid Jhulan Scheme and as a matter of fact petitioner was accepting the aforesaid money, but taking the advantage of the above stated circumstances, allegation maker set up the vigilance officials and got lodged this false case. To fortify his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention towards the contents of post trap memorandum and submitted that as soon as petitioner was apprehended by the officials, he spontaneous disclosed 2 this fact that he was collecting the money for Jhulan Scheme and the aforesaid fact was not only supported by the C.D.P.O., but almost all the Sevikas who were present on the place of occurrence at the time of so- called trap. It is also pointed out by him that the witnesses on trap memo are co-villages of the allegation maker and as a matter of fact none of the independent witness has come forward to make allegation against the petitioner. Although, learned counsel appearing for vigilance opposed the prayer for bail, but considering the above stated submissions as well as facts and circumstances of the case coupled with period of detention of the petitioner in jail custody, let the petitioner, namely, Suresh Chandra Singh be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-(Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Ist, Patna in connection with Special Case No.58 of 2010 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No.89 of 2010. PN (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.)