IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.47584 of 2008 Raghvendra Prasad Singh @ Raghvendra Kumar Singh Versus The State of Bihar, through Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI, Patna . With Cr.Misc. No.47827 of 2008 1. Prasant Kumar @ Prashan Kumar 2. Bikrant Kumar Versus The State of Bihar through the CBI. For the Petitioners :Mr.Subodh Kumar Jha & :Mr.Ajay Prasad, Advocates For the State :Mr. Bipin Kr. Sinha, S.C. CBI. ----------- 05. 05.05.2009 Both the matters arise out the same case being R.C.Case No. 22(A) of 2006, corresponding to Special Case No.19/2006, for offences instituted under sections 120B, 420,467, 468 and 471 of the Penal Code including sections 7,11, 13(2), 13(1) (a) and 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioners herein are named in the complaint leading to the institution of the case in question. As per allegations they connived with the Branch manager of UCO Bank, Sahu Parbatta Branch, Bhagalpur during the relevant time and thereby entered into a criminal conspiracy, resulting in misappropriation of huge amount of money meant for supply of iron pipes and pump sets and different related equipments to - 2 - various loanees for irrigation purpose. It is the prosecution case that out of conspiracy they prepared forged and fake bills and thereafter payments were made to them by the Branch Manager of the Bank in question. By issuing different drafts favouring the wife of the Branch Manager, the accused petitioner paid the share to the main accused, i.e., the Branch Manager. The Central Bureau of Investigation took up the case, and after thorough investigation, submitted the charge-sheet against all the petitioners herein. Counsel for the petitioners submits before this Court that allegation, so far as the petitioners are concerned, are not substantiated as the amount was paid by way of demand drafts favouring the wife of the Branch Manager for entirely different purposes. It is further the contention that such payment made in favaour of the wife of the Branch manger is reflected in their records meant for income tax purposes. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Central Bureau of Investigation, submits that for identical allegations some of the accused persons have been refused anticipatory bail by this Court. It is further contended that investigating agency has already submitted charge sheet in this case as in course of investigation the allegations have been substantiated. - 3 - Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and after going through the records, this Court is satisfied that no good case for extension of privilege of anticipatory bail to these petitioners is made out. Both the applications are accordingly dismissed. However, the present rejection shall not influence the court below once the petitioners herein surrender and apply for regular bail which shall be considered and disposed of on its own merit in accordance with law. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )