IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.19488 of 2010 MOTILAL SINGH late Bacchu Singh, resident of village Tarar, P.S. Daud Nagar, District Aurangabad, posted as Mines inspector, District Mines Office, Gaya… … … …. Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR THRU.VIGILANCE BUREAU, PATNA… OPPOSITE PARTY For the Petitioner: Mr. Krishna Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate For the Vigilance: Mr. Prashant Pratap, A.P.P. ----------- 6 27.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the Vigilance Bureau Investigation. Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for offences punishable under Sections 7/13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Petitioner’s prayer for bail had earlier been rejected by this Court vide order dated 29.03.2010 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 3730 of 2010, as contained in annexure 1, however, the court below was directed to immediately hear the parties on the issue of framing of charge and also if the charges are framed against the petitioner, then the trial should be concluded preferably within six months from the date of framing of the charges. The petitioner was granted liberty to renew his prayer for bail, if the trial is not concluded within the 2 period of six months from the date of framing of charges without any fault on the part of the petitioner. However, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that even though a period of about seven months has elapsed since the rejection of the bail of the petitioner, no hearing on the issue of framing of charge could be done. A report was called for from the concerned court with regard to the stage of the case concerned. I have perused the report, which is kept at Flags C and D. It is stated therein that copies of certain documents are still awaited from the Vigilance Bureau Investigation for its supply to the accused persons, for which a letter has also been sent to the Vigilance Department on 02.07.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that without any fault on the part of the petitioner, who is in custody since 12.11.2009, no hearing on the issue of framing of charges could be done and, thus, the order of this Court for concluding the trial within six months from the date of framing of the charges could not be complied with. Further submission is that co-accused 3 Sudhir Kumar has been granted bail by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.05.2010 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 17542 of 2010, as contained in Annexure 3. In above view of the matter, prayer for grant of bail has been made in the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned counsel for the Vigilance Bureau Department submitted that on earlier occasion prayer for bail of this petitioner was rejected, however, liberty was granted to the petitioner to move this Court after six months since the date of framing of the charge, if the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid time and since the charges are yet to be framed, thus, the prayer for bail is premature. It is also contended that subsequently all the papers have now been sent to the court concerned except the FSL report. So far the other accused, who has been granted bail by this Court, is concerned, it is submitted that the allegation against co-accused Sudhir Kumar is that Rupees Ten Thousand has been recovered from his car, whereas a sum of Rupees Five Thousand has been recovered from the pocket of this petitioner. However, while passing the earlier order dated 29.03.2010, the desire of this Court was to get the trial of 4 the petitioner concluded at the earliest. Thus, the court concerned was directed to immediately hear the parties on the issue of framing of the charge but from the report of the court concerned it appears that the direction of this Court could not be complied and one of the reasons for the same, which is evident from the report of the court concerned, is that certain papers were still awaited from the Vigilance Department. Now in view of the fact that a period of about seven months has elapsed since the date of rejection of the earlier prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and even hearing on the point of framing of charge could not be done and other co-accused having been enlarged on bail by a Bench of this Court. In above view of the matter, let the petitioner, MOTILAL SINGH, be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, Vigilance-1, Patna in connection with Special Case No. 89/09 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 111/09, with a further condition that one of the bailors of the petitioner must be a close relative or family member of the petitioner, who shall file affidavit 5 before the concerned court, giving complete genealogy to show as to how he or she is related with the petitioner. It is also made clear that the petitioner shall cooperate in expeditious disposal of the trial and shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment of the case. He shall remain present on each and every date during the course of trial. If the petitioner fails to remain present on two consecutive dates without any reasonable cause shown by him, then the court concerned would be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of bail bonds of the petitioner. It is also expected from the trial court to take all possible steps for expeditious disposal of the trial. SC ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)