IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.14239 of 2011 BIRENDRA PRASAD SHRIVASTAVA SON OF LATE RAM PRASAD SHRIVASTAVA, RESIDENT OF WEST BORING CANAL ROAD,PRAGATI PATH, P.S.SHRI KRISHNAPURI,DISTRICT PATNA --- PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH VIGILANCE --— OPP.PARTY ----------- 02/ 11.05.2011 Heard Mr. Sandeep Kuamr, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance. This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in Special Case No. 13 of 1998 arising out of Vigilance P.S.case No. 11 of 1998. This is the third attempt. His first anticipatory bail application was rejected on 16.11.1998 Vide Cr.Misc.No. 17137 of 1998 and second on 30.01.2008 vide Cr.Misc.No. 2724 of 2008. The petitioner is still absconding and is not appearing before the court below where he should have appeared long back. The first information report was registered on 02.07.1998 for offences under Section 13(2) read with section 13(i)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The case relates to possession of disproportionate assets and the matter was investigated into by the Vigilance 2 Department. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Cr.App.No. 2271 of 2010 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7615 of 2009 has laid down principle for grant of anticipatory bail and according to the ratio laid down in that case the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit. It has also been submitted that the prosecution agency has failed to nab the petitioner and long period has passed. He is a man of 70 years of age and has donated one kidney to his daughter and he is suffering from various ailments. So, he is not in a position to remain in custody. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner’s younger son is a chronic patient of schizophrenia and in day-to-day life he has to consult physicians where he is forced to go. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner has been opposed by learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance Department. It appears that firstly the prayer 3 for anticipatory bail of the petitioner was rejected in 1998 and 13 years have passed. Naturally 13 years has made the petitioner more old. Even after second rejection of anticipatory bail he has not surrendered and he is still out of custody. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner has been rejected twice earlier. On third occasion I am not inclined to revise the earlier orders. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected and he is directed to surrender before the court below. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to make his all submissions including about his ailments before the court below and the court below will consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law. Tahir/- ( Shyam Kishore Sharma, J. )