IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.13115 of 2008 BHOLA NATH BAJPAYEE Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 7 30.07.2008 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the Vigilance. Petitioner is an accused in a case registered for the offence under sections 406/409/420/467/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code and section 5(2) read with section 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 corresponding to section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of corruption Act, 1988. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that on perusal of the first information report, it would appear that there is absolutely no allegation against this petitioner, however, upon investigation charge sheet has been submitted as contained in Annexure-3, wherein it has been alleged to the effect that petitioner, who was the Chief Account Officer, Bihar State Leather Industrial Corporation made an excess payment to the tune of rupees one lakh fourth thousand and odd as allegedly the supply of the polythene was 3,59,285.20 Kg instead of 3,90,466.1832 Kg. Further submission is that the vigilance while in investigating and submitting the charge - 2 - sheet committed serious arithmetical mistakes in calculation of the quantity of polythene supplied and received. On proper arithmetical calculation as indicated in Chart prepared by the petitioner contained in Annexures- 4 & 5, it would appear that the alleged short supply is not correct, and consequently, no excess payment has been made by the petitioner, as alleged. It is further submitted that as a matter of fact the petitioner being the Chief Account Officer was required to make the payment on receiving the proper advise from the concerned Additional District Magistrate & other supporting officials entrusted with the duty of receiving the supply, and as such, the petitioner can not be fastened with the criminal liability on account of any mistake committed by those officials against whom the Vigilance has alleged in the first information report with regard to their criminal conspiracy with the concerned supplier. In addition to the above, it has been submitted that the petitioner is an old patient of heart disease and has undergone bye-pass surgery at All Indian Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi, and is very often required to visit the hospital. The petitioner has retired from service on 31st July, 2007. In the circumstances, petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail. - 3 - Learned counsel appearing for the vigilance, on the other hand, opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the officials, who were entrusted with the duty to receive the polythene as well as to make payment, they all conspired for making excess payment which resulted in loss to the public exchequer. Learned counsel, however, does not dispute that the matter regarding quantity of polythene supplied and received is a matter of calculation. Considering the rival submissions of the parties and upon perusal of the allegations levelled in the first information report, averments made in the petitioner as well as the materials brought on record, it is directed that in the event of arrest or surrender with a period of four weeks from today, the petitioner, Bhola Nath Bajpayee be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, Vigilance I, Patna in connection with Special Case No. 42 of 1989 arising out of vigilance P.S.Case No. 30 of 1989 subject to the conditions as laid down under section subject to the condition as laid down under section 438 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is, however, made clear that since the petitioner has undertaken to co-operate with the - 4 - prosecution for early conclusion of the trial, in case it is found that the petitioner is not co-operating in the trial, it will be open for the prosecution to take steps for cancellation of his bail. Manish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)