IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.7910 of 2010 1. ARJUN SINGH,son of Late Mahabir Singh, resident of village-Ahiyapur,P.S.-Bihta, District-Patna. 2. Bishwanath Rai,son of Late Sadasi Rai, resident of village-Raidih,P.S.-Bihta, District-Patna. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE STATE OF BIHAR,through Vigilance Department. ----------- For the Petitioners: M/s Durgesh Nandan & Suraj Bansh Roy, Advocates For the Opp.Party : M/s C.M.Chaurasia, Spl.P.P.Vigilance & Murli Dhar, Addl.P.P. --------- 02/ 13-04-2010 Heard the parties. Petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No.07/2006 dated 14-02-2006 giving rise to Special Case No.07 of 2006, registered under Sections 34/109/120B/420 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Sections 7/13(1)(A)(D) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that according to prosecution case, it has been specifically alleged that co-accused Sarwan Kumar, Junior Engineer, is the main culprit for committing the crime in question and he is said to have received illegal gratification from the consumers for installation of some transformers and for giving electric connection to the villagers. The Assistant Engineer and the staff working in his office are also said to have received illegal 2 gratification, which all have been detailed in the FIR (Annexure-1). It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners are unskilled Khalasi and were working as line man. It is further submitted that in the whole FIR vide Annexure-1 it has not been specifically mentioned about payment of even a single rupee to the petitioners by way of illegal gratification. It is further highlighted that petitioners, being the employees of lowest cadre, were simply to obey the command of superior officers and, therefore, offences alleged are not attracted against them. Learned counsel for the Vigilance, though has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail made on behalf of the petitioners, but has not been able to show from the FIR about receiving of any specific amount by the petitioners by way of illegal gratification. In the aforesaid background, in the event of arrest/surrender within a period of four weeks from today in the above noted case, the above named petitioners shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand)each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, Vigilance-Ist, Patna, subject to the conditions as laid down under sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and subject to the further conditions that: (a) one of the bailors must be a Government servant or close family members of the petitioners, who will file an affidavit in the court below showing his/her relationship 3 with the petitioners, (b) if the petitioners are found involved in same and similar nature of cases in future, then in that case the informant/prosecution shall be at liberty to file a petition for cancellation of the bail of the petitioners, and if such a petition is filed, the court below would be obliged to dispose of the same in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned and © the petitioners are directed to fully co- operate in early completion of the investigation of the case and whenever their physical presence is required for the purpose of interrogation by the Investigating Officer, they are obliged to make themselves available for such interrogation and non-compliance of the aforesaid order would be construed as misuse the privilege of anticipatory bail granted to the petitioners and consequences shall follow. AH/ ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)