IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.39219 of 2008 RAJENDRA PRASAD …. PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …. OPP. PARTY For the petitioner : - Sri Shekhar Kumar Singh, Advocate For the O.P. : - Sri Prabhu Narayan Sharma, Special P.P. (Vigilance) ----------- 2. 16.10.2008 Heard Sri Shekhar Kumar Singh, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri Rakesh Kumar, Special P.P. for the Vigilance Department. The case has been registered under Sections 7/13 (2) & 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in respect of the alleged demand of bribe by the petitioner, who was Block Animal Husbandry Officer and was to submit his post-mortem examination report after having conducted the examination on the dead buffalo of the complainant. But the petitioner was requiring the complainant to cuff up Rs.2,000/-, then he would be sending the report. The complainant Dulo approached the Vigilance Department on 2.7.2008 and accordingly a preliminary verification was made and thereafter a trap was laid. On the day of the preliminary verification the complainant along with the Enquiring Officer namely, Binod Kumar Prasad an A.S.I. for the Vigilance Department, visited the petitioner - 2 - and on that day petitioner received Rs.500/- with further direction to the complainant to pay up the remainder of bribe on a particular date and time or to call on cellular phone. The trap party reached, the bribe was paid and the petitioner was captured and the money was recovered. The confirmatory test, on seizing the currency notes and cloth of the petitioner, which was made by rinsing the fingers of the petitioner into the solution of sodium carbonate, resulted positive. The contention is that the post trap memorandum, which is the part of the FIR, indicated that the petitioner was arrested and the search and recovery was made at a place described in column 3 of the document but that appears contrary to the statement made in the memorandum of evidence Annexure-3 in its paragraph 8. The contention further is that Annexure 2 is the copy of the post-mortem examination report which was already prepared by the petitioner on 24.6.2008 was transmitted to the police station concerned. The contention further is that thereafter complaint has been lodged by a clever litigant like the complainant by putting money on false accusation. - 3 - The learned counsel for the Vigilance Department drew the attention of the court to the date of dispatch vide Memo No. 479 dated 1.7.2008 of the post-mortem examination report to submit that it was very easy for the petitioner to ante date the document. As regards holding of post-mortem examination and making the report, it was contended that because the document was in the custody of the petitioner, it could have been very easy for him to put any date on it. It is further contended that the report has reached the police station or not, it cannot be said with certainty. It could safely be concluded that if the report was made on 24.6.08 and transmitted to the police station, then it could definitely have reached on the day the trap was laid. Even though, there was no anomaly and contradiction in the post trap memorandum and the memorandum of evidence. I have gone through the FIR. If one could consider the statements succeeding the post trap memorandum then one could understand as to why the statement in paragraph 8 of the memorandum of evidence was made. It is stated that the trap team reached at the police station and thereafter proceeded towards the Block Headquarters and arrested the - 4 - petitioner at the place as described at page 22 of the FIR. On perusing the upper half of the page and on comparison of that statement with post trap memorandum, which is the content of paragraph 8, the court does not find any anomaly. The statement of the Vigilance Department was acceptable that for many reasons there could be a mob in the place of preparing the memorandum or making confirmatory test and one may think that assemblance of persons, in such situations might have caused difficulty for the team to prepare the memorandum and undertake confirmatory test. Having considered the arguments in the light of the material, I find that it could be a case in which the petitioner could not be directed to be released for the present. The petition is dismissed. However, as soon as Dulo Yadav is examined in the case and that examination is succeeded by the examination of the officer leading the trap team, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail in the court below and the court below shall release him on bail. DKS/ (Dharnidhar Jha, J)