IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.38385 of 2008 BIRENDRA PRASAD MANDAL @ B.P.MANDAL S/o- Late Shiv Narayan Mandal, R/o- Village – Murho, P.S. and District – Madhepura At present Club road, Madhepura, Ward No. 20, P.S. and District – Madhepura, the then Inspector Of Colleges (Art and Commerce) B.N. Mandal University, Laloo Nagar, Madhepura Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR THRU. THE S.P.VIGILANCE INVESTIGATION, BUREAU, 6-CIRCULAR ROAD, PATNA, BIHAR ----------- 4. 11.11.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Vigilance. Petitioner is an accused in a case for the offences registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 109 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Under Section 4(2) of the Non Government Teachers Training and Non – Government Primary Teacher Education ( Control & Regulation) Act, 1982 and Under Section 13(2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The allegation against the petitioner is to the effect that while he was working as Inspector of Arts and Commerce in the B.N. Mandal University, Madhepura, was a member of the inspecting team for inspecting the college namely, Muslim Minority Ahmadia B.Ed. Rampara, Katihar for its recognition. A similar inspecting team was also constituted by National - 2 - Council of Teacher Education (NCTE) for inspecting the said college for the purpose of recognition. It is further alleged that the petitioner recommended the case of the said college for recognition in his letter addressed to the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Bihar in the Department of Education. A similar recommendation was also made by the said National Council of Teacher Education (NCTE). Further allegation against the petitioner is to the effect that he made the recommendation by misinterpreting the relevant rules knowingly in conspiracy with the other co-accused persons so that the college may get the recognition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner made the recommendations on the basis of the materials already available in the University with respect to the said college. Besides the above, it is further submitted that notwithstanding the recommendation the affiliation/ recognition could not be granted to the said college with the result that no admission on the basis of such recommendation could be effected and thereby in the other way the report was not acted upon. He further submits that in the said very case another co-accused namely, Dasrath Tiwari, who was also a member of the Inspecting Team constituted by the National Council of Teacher Education (NCTE ), has also recommended for the recognition of the said college. The same report was also not acted upon and as such, no recognition could be - 3 - granted to the said college. Dasrath Tiwary, the said co- accused, has been allowed anticipatory bail by this court in Cr. Misc. No. 27296 of 2008, as contained in Annexure-4. He further submits that the petitioner is an old person aged about 72 years and suffering from ailment and he is presently taking treatment in Delhi. Learned counsel for the Vigilance opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the conspiracy in the University was continuing since before the recommendation made by the petitioner on 22nd of November 1996 for recognition of the college. It is further submitted that the petitioner while working as Inspector of Arts and Commerce in the University knowingly made such recommendation for ulterior purpose. He further submits that in the said case the investigation is completed and chargesheet has been submitted. As such, petitioner should appear in the court below and make application for grant of regular bail. Besides the above, it is also submitted that in a similar case the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner was rejected by this court in Vigilance P.S. Case No. 6 of 2000. Having considered the submissions of the parties as noticed above, it is directed that in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of eight weeks from today, the petitioner named above be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the - 4 - like amount each to the satisfaction of the Spl. Judge Vigilance –I, Patna arising out of Vigilance Case No. 12 of 2000 in connection with Spl. Case No. 06 of 2002 subject to the conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is made clear that in case petitioner does not cooperate with the prosecution in the trial or in any manner misuses the privilege of anticipatory bail, it will be open for the Vigilance to take appropriate steps for cancellation of the bail on reasonable grounds. Jagdish (Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J)