IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.16022 of 2009 SHASHI BHUSHAN UPADHYAY S/O-Late Dhurv Upadhyay, R/O-Vill-Madhopur, P.S.-Rasulpur, Distt.-Chhapra. ………………………………………Petitioner. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR THRU. VIG. …………………………………………..Opposite Party. WITH Cr.Misc. No.18993 of 2009 DINESH KUMAR ARYA S/O-Dharmraj Paswan, R/O-Vill-Hankarpur, P.S.-Rajpur, Distt.-Buxar. ………………………………………Petitioner. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR THRU.VIGILANCE …………………………………………..Opposite Party. ----------- 3/ 28.07.2009 A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of petitioner Dinesh Kumar Arya. Since both the above bail applications have arisen out of one occurrence which has led to registration of the case, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Cr. Misc. No.-16022 of 2009 is a regular bail application filed on behalf of Shashi Bhushan Upadhyay whereas Cr. Misc. No.-18993 of 2009 is a petition under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of Dinesh Kumar Arya which were 2 heard earlier on 28.05.2009 and the case diary was called for and the same has been received. Allegation is that in course of enquiry, it transpired that in the department of P.W.D. building, Danapur certain irregularities were committed by all the accused persons who were public servants and the contractors. Without selling B.O.Q. of tenders as well as in view of a planned conspiracy the Government was put to loss. About petitioner namely Shashi Bhushan Upadhyay, it has been alleged that he was the contractor of the department and he was arrested with the several files of the department without any authority. He was working under the false name of Daya Shankar Upadhyay also. About petitioner namely Dinesh Kumar Arya, it has been alleged that he was the Divisional Accounts Officer and without his conspiracy the offence could not have been committed. 3 Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner namely Shashi Bhushan Upadhyay has submitted that at best it is a case of irregularities. There is no allegation that the petitioner has caused any wrongful loss to the Government. He is not the Government employee. So, the case does not come under the purview of Prevention of Corruption Act. There is no report that the work was not done. On behalf of petitioner namely Dinesh Kumar Arya, it has been submitted that he is Divisional Accounts Officer and there is only suspicion against him that he might have been involved in the offence and except that there is nothing against him. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Vigilance has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner 4 namely Shashi Bhushan Upadhyay [in Cr. Misc. No.-16022/2009] is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge Vigilance/Learned Additional and District and Sessions Judge IV/concerned court Patna in connection with Special Case No.-12 of 2009 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No.- 18 of 2009. So far as the petitioner namely Dinesh Kumar Arya [in Cr. Misc. No.- 18993/2009] is concerned, prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed. He is directed to surrender before the court below within a period of twenty days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and on his so surrendering, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional and District 5 Sessions Judge, IV/concerned court Patna in connection with Special Case No.-12 of 2009 arising out of Vigilance Case No.- 18 of 2009, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. kksinha/ (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.)