IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.5739 of 2010 ASHOK PASWAN, Son of late Sital Paswan, R/o village Kashipur, P.S. Samastipur, District Samastipur ………. Petitioner Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Department of Vigilance, Patna …. Opposite Parties ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate For the Vigilance Investigation : Mr.C.M.Chaurasia, Spl. P.P. Bureau ------ 4 07.04.2010 Heard Mr. Rajendra Pd. Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Vigilance Investigation Bureau. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered under Sections 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It had been alleged by the complainant before the Vigilance Investigation Bureau that petitioner was seeking illegal gratification of an amount of Rs. 76,000/- for handing over the cheque of Rs. 3,71,330/-. On the complaint after verification a pre-trap memorandum was prepared. Thereafter, a trap was laid and petitioner had been apprehended red handed after accepting bribe money of Rs. 76,000/-. After completion of other formalities 2 the hands of the petitioner were dipped in the Sodium Carbonate solution, the same turned pink. Thereafter the petitioner was taken into custody. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that from the records, it is manifest that every thing has been done in a hush - hush manner as allegedly on 12.11.2009 complaint was made and after verification on 13.11.2009 itself pre-trap memorandum was prepared, trap was laid and petitioner was taken into custody. Further contention is that no such cheque of Rs. 3,71,330/- could be found during the course of investigation which was ready to be paid to the complainant and was not being paid on the pretext that the bribe money of Rs. 76000/- was demanded. It is also the contention of the petitioner that he could not even had signed the cheques rather it was the Block Development Officer who is responsible for passing the amount and signing the cheque. In fact, it is submitted, that no such cheque has actually been singed by the concerned Block Development Officer, thus, there was no question of handing over the same to the 3 informant.. It is further contended that the chargesheet has been submitted already and petitioner is in custody since 13.11.2009. On the other hand learned counsel for the Vigilance Investigation Bureau submitted that on the complaint, after proper verification F.I.R. was lodged, a pre-trap memorandum was prepared and trap was laid. The petitioner was caught red handed along with Rs. 76,000/- which he accepted as bribe money and the same was recovered from his possession. Thereafter, all the proper procedures were followed and his fingers were dipped in the Sodium Carbonate solution , the same turned pink and as such it stood corroborated without doubt that the petitioner had received the bribe money. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioner, who is a government servant was caught red handed while accepting the bribe money, I am not inclined to grant bail to this petitioner. However, since the petitioner is already in custody since 30.11.2009 and it has been stated on behalf of the 4 Vigilance Investigation Bureau that the 12.3.2010 the date fixed for hearing on the issue framing of charges, I deem it desirable to direct the trial court concerned to immediately hear the parties on such issue. Thereafter, upon framing of charges, it should take steps for expeditious disposal of the trial preferably within six months from the date of framing of charges. The petitioner, if so advised, shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail, if the trial is not concluded within the period of six months from the date of framing of charges, without any fault on the part of the petitioner Spd/- (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)