IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1444 of 2008 SANJAY KUMAR S/O- SURENDRA PRASAD SINHA, R/O- VILLAGE BASANTPUR, P.S.- RIGHA, DISTRICT- SITAMARHI, AT PRESENT ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ESTIMATING OFFICER, R.W.D. MADHUBANI. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH A.D.G. DEPARTMENT OF VIGILANCE. 2. ARUN KUMAR SINGH, (SUB-INSPECTOR) OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, DEEP NAGAR POLICE STATION, DISTRICT- NALANDA. For the petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. C.M. Chaurasia, Spl. PP. Vigilance. ----------- 5 28.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Vigilance. Petitioner is questioning the legality of order dated 29.7.2008 passed by learneeavd Special Judge, Vigilance-I, Patna in Special Case no. 03/08 whereby on a requisition filed by the Dy.S.P. (I.O.), non-bailable warrant of arrest has been directed to be issued against the petitioner. The requisition submitted by the I.O. is at Annexure-3. It appears therefrom that the petitioner is a suspected accused of a case instituted under Sections 420, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The matter relates to crumbling down of a bridge which was under construction. Involvement of the petitioner in the said occurrence was found as the Assistant Engineer dealing with construction of bridge which caved in during construction. It is the prosecution case that the construction work was not found of specified description/quality which caused loss to the tune of over 7 lakhs of rupees to the 2 State exchequer. It further appears from the requisition that a Committee was constituted to assess the loss and fasten the criminal liability of the accused(s) involved therein wherein name of the petitioner surfaced in the commission of the said offence as he was found functioning as the Assistant Engineer. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the first instance, issuance of non-bailable warrant is contrary to law. He placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami versus State of Uttaranchal reported in 2008 (1) P.L.J.R. 82. Petitioner has only questioned the legality of this order. He is not aggrieved by the institution of the case and his prosecution. This Court on perusal of the judgment finds that the Apex Court dealt the matter on entirely different set of facts. Here requisition was supported by a memo of evidence indicating 11 circumstances against the petitioner. The petitioner has not brought on record the memo of evidence in the present case. In my view, any interference with the order 29.7.2008 shall amount to interference with the investigation of the case. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The application lacks merit. It is accordingly dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )