IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.7347 of 2009 1. SITARAM DAS 2. BRAHAMADEO PRASAD DAS ----- Petitioners Versus STATE OF BIHAR THRU VIG. with Cr.Misc. No.9426 of 2009 1. KAMINI SHANKAR GHOSH 2. MANOJ KUMAR SINGH ---- Petitioners Versus STATE OF BIHAR THRU. VIG. with Cr.Misc. No.10297 of 2009 NARSINGH PASWAN Versus STATE OF BIHAR THRU. VIG. ----------- 3 6.5.2009 All the three applications arise out of Special Case no. 30 of 2008 arising out of Vigilance P.S. case no. 86 of 2008, have been heard together. Complaints received regarding black marketing of the commodities control and supply by the B.S.F.C.S.D. and persons concerned withholding and dealing in different areas were found liable for the irregularity committed in black market. On verification, stock was not found corroborating the supply. Learned counsel representing the State-Vigilance raised all the points including the rejection of - 2 - prayer of one Godown Assistant Manager, as against it the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioner of Cr.Misc.No. 10297 of 2009 is supply officer but he had any concern till 1995 and in all a simple irregularity was found about recommending the name of one of the P.D.S.dealer Ramakant Paswan but that was the matter of the year 2007 or 2008. According to learned counsel, recommendation of the name of shopkeeper who later became corrupt if admitted then also fixing its liability on the authority who recommended its name cannot be made a ground for rejection of his prayer for bail. I also agree with the submission. For rest of the petitioners of Cr.Misc.Nos. 7347 of 2009 and 9426 of 2009 it is submitted that what may be said irregularity committed by the department making corruption, each and every may not be treated on similar footing. For all it is said that no consumer is examined by the Investigating Officer to depose irregularity committed by them or non- - 3 - supply of the grain or kerosene oil to any of the consumer for which they were entitled which is opposed on the ground that proper registered was not supplied by any of the petitioners. As far petitioner, Sitaram Das, he did not submit register for the year 2007 and distribution register was not signed by the concerned authority. For petitioner Brahamadeo Prasad Das, it is said that only Photostat copies of register was supplied, in that also distribution register was not bearing the signature of proper authority, same is deposition of petitioners Kamini Shankar Ghosh and Manoj Kumar Singh, their distribution register also was not signed by the proper authority. I am convinced with the learned counsel for the Vigilance that whenever any conspiracy is there then there will be participation from each and every corner but in all cases it is for the investigating agency to collect some positive evidence. In the case in my opinion also when entitled persons are not coming forward to state their grievance - 4 - about receiving of no commodity for which they are entitled no such liability can be fixed as to refuse their anticipatory bail basing the case of Assistant Godown Manager. In the discussed suggested facts and circumstances, all the three petitions for anticipatory bail are allowed. In the event of arrest or surrender within one month from today in Special Case no.30 of 2008 arising out of Vigilance Case No. 86 of 2008, the above named petitioners shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Special Judge (Vigilance)-II at Patna, subject to the condition as laid down under section 438(2) Cr.P.C. (Mandhata Singh,J.) AI