IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.15295 of 2011 Sone Lal Hembram, Son of Late Ram Sahay Hembram, resident of Village- Mathura, Police Station-Chandan, District- Banka, at present Patel Nagar, Road No. 11, P.S. Shashtri Nagar, District- Patna………………….………………………………………Petitioner. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH S.P. Vigilance…….Opposite Party. ----------- 2. 16.05.2011. Heard Mr. Rana Pratap Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Ramakant Sharma senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Vigilance Department. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Special Case No. 25 of 2000 (Vigilance P.S. Case No. 20 of 2000) registered under Sections 420, 467, 408, 471, 477/A, 193, 109, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(E)of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The disproportionate assets assessed by the Vigilance Department to the tune of Rs. 2,67,92000/- resulted into lodging of D. A. Case. It is submitted by senior counsel for the petitioner that the basis of lodging of the case was the assessment order made by the Income Tax Department. The said 2 assessment order was partly allowed by the appellate authority. The Income Tax Department challenged the appellate order in revision that was also dismissed and ultimately the petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 11,000/- as income tax which he has already paid. It is further submitted that the charge sheet was submitted in 2007 but the final notice for payment of tax has been made in 2010 and the petitioner has retired from his service. It is submitted that the basis on which the D.A. Case was instituted that was unsettled by the appellate Income Tax authority. It is submitted by senior counsel for the Vigilance Department that the D.A. Case was investigated and the charge sheet was submitted in 2007 when the cognizance has been taken and the petitioner’s anticipatory bail application was rejected in 2004 by the learned court below and again the prayer was renewed in 2011 before the learned court below. It is submitted by senior counsel for the petitioner that since the matter was being processed before the Income Tax 3 Department hence, under misconception the anticipatory bail on behalf of the petitioner was not filed before this Court. Since the earlier application for grant of anticipatory bail on behalf of the petitioner was rejected in 2004 by the learned court below, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. However, let the learned court below pass appropriate order for release of the petitioner on regular bail preferably on the same day keeping in view that the charge sheet has already been submitted and the petitioner has already retired from his service if the petitioner surrenders and prays for regular bail within a period of four weeks from today. Learned court below will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the petitioner if the petitioner defaults for three consecutive occasions during trial. With this observation, this application is disposed off. Let the order be transmitted through fax to the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Patna in connection with Special Case No. 25 4 of 2000(Vigilance P.S. Case No. 20 of 2000) at the cost of the petitioner. U. K. ( Dinesh Kumar Singh, J)