IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.20226 of 2009 SUDHAKAR PANDEY, son of Late Shri Himmat Pandey, village Jitwarpur, PS Gobindganj, Dist. East Champaran, Bihar and resident of Flat No. C-104, Anand Vihar Complex, Road No.1, New Patliputra Colony, Patna. Versus STATE OF BIHAR THRU.VIG. ----------- 2 11.6.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the Vigilance Department. The petitioner is accused in a case under section 13(1) (e) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The total amount of disproportionate asset is Rs. 5.58 lakhs. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to certain aspects with respect to inventory and the calculations made by the raiding party which would indicate that the calculations made are incorrect. It is submitted that the petitioner had deposited Rs. 3 lakhs in the Public Provident Fund for which he earned a sum of Rs. 1.17 lakhs as interest. That amount has also been calculated for the purpose of showing that it was disproportionate in the assets of the petitioner. Similarly certain other anomalies have been pointed out including the fact that Rs. 40,000/- has been shown to be as the cost of 47 Saries owned by the petitioner’s wife. It is submitted that during her entire life which would include the gifts she got at the time of her marriage it would be probable that she was at least given 21 Saries at the time of her marriage. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Vigilance Department points out that Rs.95,000/- and odd was recovered from 2 the house of the petitioner. This amount is explained by the petitioner by stating that the amount has been withdrawn from the State Bank of India from the Saving accounts of the petitioner’s mother for the purpose of performing the ‘Geneo’ ceremony of her grand son and had been gifted to the petitioner. Lastly it is submitted that the Vigilance Department has not examined the petitioner at any stage and given him an opportunity to explain the amount which is supposed to be disproportionate assets. The petitioner has remained in custody in this case for fifty one days. Be that as it may, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail in Patna Vigilance PS Case No. 39/2009 on furnishing bail bond of rupees ten thousand with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Special Judge Vigilance I, Patna with the condition that he will make himself available before the Vigilance Department for questioning as and when required. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)