IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.22265 of 2008 SATYENDRA NATH LAL Versus STATE OF BIHAR THRU. VIG. With Cr.Misc. No.22259 of 2008 CHANDRESH RAJAK Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. ----------- 4. 6.8.2008 Heard. The case relates to a trap laid by the Vigilance Department on complaint that the two petitioners were requiring the land holder of the land, which has been described as a pond situated at village Maner within the Notified Area Committee, to cough up a bribe at least of Rs.6.5 lacs for allowing the land holder to fill up the said pond. The land holder was conveyed the message through one of his employees who was overseeing the earth filling that the Anchal Adhakari wanted the work to stop else to pay up the bribe money. It appears that the land holder filed a complaint before the Vigilance police and, accordingly, a trap was laid which appears from one of the annexures to the FIR. The trap was laid as may appear from Annexure at page 91 on 4.5.2008 in between 19-20 hours in the manner as indicated in the memorandum and the two petitioners, namely, Satyendra Nath Lal and - 2 - Chandresh Rajak were allegedly handed over the notes of the denominations of Rs.500/- totaling Rs.50,000/-each which were previously treated with a particular chemical. The whole manner of the trap, the payment and the arrest of the two petitioners and the recovery of the currency notes has been described in the post trap memorandum which appears at running page 91 of the present brief. The original complainant, who complained against the two petitioners about demand of bribe filed his complaint and annexed therewith his documents of purchasing the land as also other documents, like, that showing the creation of Jamabandi, the copy of the rent receipt showing the payment of the land revenue, so as to justifying that his act was legitimate and that the petitioners were demanding illegal gratification for illegally obstructing the filling of the earth. This was evident from the fact that the petitioner Chandresh Rajak made a report to the Anchal Adhakari concerned by Annexure-4 which was probably presented before the Anchal Adhakari on 7.3.2008 and in that report petitioner Chandresh Rajak reported that the land was a pond in use of the general public and the water of the village used to be flown in it which - 3 - ultimately went out into a river and that the filling was illegal and further that the petitioner Chandresh Rajak had stopped the filling. This report was sought from petitioner Chandresh Rajak by Anchal Adhakari, allegedly, on a public petition ventilating grievances of illegally occupying the pond in public use and filling the same with earth by original complainant by the Vigilance Department. The contention is that prior to the filing of the FIR and the trap which was led through which the petitioners are alleged accepting bribe for doing a favour to the original complainant, the matter was under enquiry at the directions of the District Magistrate, Patna who had been approached by the general public through a public petition signed by a huge number of persons who complained that persons of the weaker and downtrodden sections of the society had their houses around the pond and they were using the pond. Besides, the pond was existing as a reservoir for storing the rain water which used to go from the village to the pond and if the pond were filled up, the entire village will be submersed into water. It was contended that simply because the petitioners were acting legitimately in the public interest by holding a - 4 - full-fledged enquiry about the ownership and other claims of the original complainant who claimed himself to be the legitimate owner, the petitioners have falsely been implicated by bringing the officers of the Vigilance Department into his collusion. In order to showing the circumstances of such wrong and false implication the attention of the court has been drawn to the post trap memorandum appearing at page 91 of the brief which indicates as if the petitioners were counting the currency notes after receiving the same at the public place like a petrol pump which is described in column 5 of the post trap memorandum. It was contended that it is simply ridiculous that bribe takers will be counting the currency notes behind their two wheelers at a public place like a petrol pump, which could be accessable to many persons. It was contended that, in fact, in order to putting pressure on the Revenue Department which was taking steps for appropriately dealing with the situation, the false case has been lodged. The learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance Department has drawn the court’s attention to Annexures-6, 7 and 11 which are the correspondences between the officers of the Revenue - 5 - Department like the S.D.M., the Additional Collector to the District Magistraste-cum-Collector pointing out the history of the land and the need to act for cancelling the Jamabandi and for retrieving the possession. In fact one out of the three annexures highlights the fact that the pond was already being dealt with by the Revenue Department as a Sairat and it used to be settled to fishermen and, as such, the claim of the original complainant, i.e., Sri Navneet Sinha that he was the owner of the land on account of inheriting the same from his ancestors was false and wrong. Be that as it may at least this Court does not have any concern or duty to adjudicate upon the right, title and interest of Sri Navneet Sinha, the original complainant to the Vigilance Department concerning the pond in question. This is a case of trap and the trap was led at a public place as may appear from the post trap memorandum from its column 5. The allegation is that after being handed over the bundles of Rs.500/- notes the two petitioners were counting the same behind their respective two wheelers. This was the submission of the learned counsel on behalf of the two petitioners that it is absurd. - 6 - The petitioners were the government servants and now they have been put under suspension. They are also in custody. The facts have to be tried by the appropriate court. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct the release of the above named two petitioners on bail on furnishing bonds of Rs.20,000/-(twenty thousand)each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, Vigilance-I, Patna in Spl.Case no.19 of 2008(Vigilance P.S.Case no.22 of 2008). B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )