IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.323 of 2010 1.RATAN LAL JAIN 2.Sunil Kumar Jain, both residents of Mohalla Govind Mitra Road, P.s. Pirbahore, Dist. Patna. ….Petitioners. Versus STATE OF BIHAR THRU.VIGILANCE ----------- 2 7.4.2010 Heard Mr. Akhileshwar Pd. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned Special P.P. for the Vigilance Department. Petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Special Case No. 42 of 1989 arising out of Vigilance P.S. case No. 30 of 1989 registered under sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120 B of the Indian Penal Code and section 5(2) read with section 5 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 converted to section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. According to the prosecution case polythine sheets were supplied by the petitioners for distribution amongst the flood affected persons in the year 1987. Polythine sheets were purchased by the petitioners from fictitious firm and quality of polythine sheets were of substandard quality. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no dispute about supply of Polythine sheets made by the petitioners and allegation of excess payment to the tune of Rs. 1, 40,013.42 is because of mistake of calculation of the authority concerned. By referring to Annexure-7, he further submits that co-accused Bhola Nath Bajpayee, the Chief Account Officer of Bihar State Leather Industrial Corporation, who is said to have made payment of the entire amount, has been extended the privilege of anticipatory bail by a Bench of this Court by a reasoned order dated - 2 - 30.7.2008 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 13115 of 2008. By referring to Annexures-8 and 9 it is submitted that co-accused Narayan Das RAthi and co-accused Shiv Kumar Agrawal, who were also the suppliers of Polythine sheets and are having similar types of allegations have been extended the privilege of anticipatory bail by an order dated 7.12.2008 vide Annexure8 and 20.5.2009 vide Annexure-9 respectively, and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to have the similar relief under section 438 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance has strongly opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and points out that prayer for anticipatory bail made on behalf of petitioner no.1 was earlier rejected by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance-I, Patna by order dated 5.12.2007, therefore, he was not entitled to seek similar relief in his second petition. However, he has fairly conceded that petitioner no.1 had not moved before this Court earlier for grant of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the Vigilance could not distinguish the case of the petitioners with the case of other co-accused persons, who have been extended the privilege of anticipatory bail by this Court by different orders, which have been referred to above. In the aforesaid back ground, let the above named petitioners , in the event of their arrest or surrender in the court below within a period of four weeks from today, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of Special Judge, Vigilance-I, Patna in the above noted case, subject to the conditions laid down under section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and subject to further conditions: (a) That one of the bailors must be Govt. servant or close family - 3 - member of the petitioners who will file an affidavit in the court below showing his/her relationship with the petitioner. (b) That the petitioners shall make regular pairvi in the court below in the present case either by appearing themselves in person or through representation by their lawyers on each and every dates, and if on two consecutive dates petitioners fail to make pairvi, then the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bond of the petitioners. (Birendra Prasad Verma, J) M.Rahman