IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.31386 of 2008 PRABHUNATH SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR THRU.VIGILANCE ----------- 05- 28.8.2008 Heard Mr. Ravi Ranjan for the petitioner, and Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the Cabinet Vigilance Department. The petitioner seeks bail in Vigilance PS Case No.14 of 2008, currently pending before Special Judge, Vigilance, Muzaffarpur, vide Special Case No.8 of 2008, for the offence under Sections 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471, 477(A), 201, 109, and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 7/8/13 (2), and 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act and also under Section 7 of the E.C.Act. 2. While pressing this application, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is entirely a case of physical verification of stocks. In reply to a show-cause notice from the investigating agency, he had submitted his detailed show- cause explaining the stocks which has not been considered and he has needlessly been charge-sheeted. He next submits that Mahesh Prasad Singh, named in the F.I.R. who was in-charge of the district, has been granted bail by this court by order dated 29.7.2008, passed in Cr.Misc.No.25000 of 2008 (Mahesh Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar). He also submits that he is in custody since 21.2.2008. 3. Learned Special P.P. submits that an enormously big amount was found short in the government stocks which have been diverted to the black-market and substantially attributable to the present petitioner. It is estimated that the petitioner and other diverted - 2 - wheat amounting to Rs.6,64,300/-, and rice valued at Rs.25,40,300/- totaling Rs.32,04,600/-. He next submits that the case of Mahesh Prasad Singh stands on a fundamentally different footing inasmuch the present petitioner was incharge of the godown situate at Baniyapur itself whereas Mahesh Prasad Singh was in supervisory capacity at Chapra. He also submits that such acts are to the great detriment of the poorest of the poor for whom Public Distribution System is meant, and is bringing about a near failure of the system. 3. On a perusal of the materials on record and consideration of submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this is not a fit case for granting bail to the petitioner. It is accordingly rejected. ( S K Katriar ) mrl