IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.6975 of 2010 1.INAYAT HUSSAIN KHAN son of late Rahmat Hussain Khan Resident of Mohalla Pokhra P.S. Nagar thana Hjipur, Dist. Vaishali. 2.Ramesh Prasad Singh @ Ramesh Prasad son of Shri Shiv Kumar Singhr/o Mohalla Rajputnagar, P.s. Hajipur Nagar, Dist. Vaishali …Petitioners. Versus STATE OF BIHAR THRU.VIG. ----------- 2 4.3.2010 Heard Mr. Devendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Prasoon Sinha, G.A.-3, for the State. The two petitioners have been arrayed in the category of accused for an offence under section 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. According to the prosecution case, petitioner no.1, an advocate, is said to have offered a sum of Rs. 5000/- for seeking some favour from the Hon’ble Law Minister. Petitioner no.2, who is also an advocate, is said to have accompanied him. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners, being advocates are not the public servant within the meaning of section 2 (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and, therefore, the prosecution of the petitioners under section 9 of the Act is not maintainable. It is further submitted that as a matter of fact petitioner no.1 had certain outstanding bills for which he had approached the Hon’ble Law Minister for early payment of his bills. According to him, there was some altercation and for that reason the petitioners have been made accused in the present case by concocting a false case. It has also been stated that petitioners are in judicial custody since 9.2.2010. Mr. Prasoon Sinha, Govt. Advocate-3 appearing for the State has conceded that the prosecution under section 9 of the Act may not be - 2 - applicable in the present case, but offence under section 7 read with section 12 of the Act is apparently made out and to buttress the submission, he has drawn attention of this court towards a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. P.C. Shukla & ors, reported in (1998)3 SCC 410. Without going into the controversy as to whether the provision of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 is attracted in the present case or not, which is left to be decided by the trial court, it is sufficient that these two petitioners Inayat Hussain Khan and Ramesh Prasad Singh@ Ramesh Prasad are practicing advocates and are in judicial custody since 9.2.2010, they are directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of Special Judge, Vigilance, Patna in Special Case no.9/10 arising out of Kotwali (Patna) P.S. case no. 44/10. (Birendra Prasad Verma, J) M.Rahman