IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.5274 of 2010 BADRI THAKUR SON OF LATE MUSHARI THAKUR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KARNPUR, P.S. TOWN, DISTRICT SUPAUL. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT, PATNA. ----------- 3. 5.3.2010. Heard, Mr. Baidyanath Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the Vigilance and Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant. The petitioner, who was Mukhiya of Raj Karnpur Gram Panchayat, Supaul, was apprehended red handed while he had accepted bribe money of Rs.15,000/- from the complainant and after his apprehension Post Trap memorandum was prepared and the currency notes, which were recovered from the possession of the petitioner, were tallied with the numbers contained in Pre-Trap memorandum. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while pressing the bail petition, referring several pages of the F.I.R. and enclosures to the petition tried to persuade the court that actually the complainant had taken loan from the petitioner and thereafter, the - 2 - complainant in connivance with the vigilance apprehended the petitioner in false trap case. Learned counsel further submits that in this case, the prosecution has completely failed to establish that there was any demand of gratification by this petitioner. Learned counsel also relied upon Supreme Court judgment reported in 2009(9) SCC 87 (V. Kannan Vrs. State) particularly paragraph-19 of the judgment and argued that it is necessary to establish the demand in a trap case and only then one can be prosecuted. However, after being asked regarding the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court as to at what stage, the judgment was passed, the learned counsel for the petitioner candidly accepted that in the case of V. Kannan(Supra), the accused were convicted and it was at the stage of appeal before the Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also brought on record certain documents to suggest that the complainant had taken loan from the petitioner which was not being returned and due to said reason he had filed a complaint before Sarpanch. Lerned - 3 - counsel also referred Annexure-6 and submitted that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has passed some orders on 14.12.2009 and 2.1.2010 and declined to interfere in the matter since it was in the nature of civil dispute. On perusal of Annexure-6 as well as Annexure-3, it appears that only with a view to create a defence the petitioner had taken such stand due to the simple reason that such action were taken after the petitioner was trapped. Since it is a case of trap in which the petitioner being public servant accepted the bribe amount, subsequently, it was recovered and it was tallied with the pre trap memorandum, I am not inclined to grant bail to this petitioner. However, since the petitioner is in jail from 9.12.2009, it would not be proper to keep the petitioner behind bars without any trial. Learned counsel for the Vigilance submits that in this case after obtaining sanction from the competent authority, charge sheet has already been filed. Accordingly, it is desirable to - 4 - N.H./ direct the Vigilance/prosecution to immediately supply entire police papers to the accused within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order and thereafter, the trial court is directed to hear the parties on charge, initiate the trial and conclude the same within a period of six months from the date of framing of the charge. However, if the trial is not concluded within six months from the date of framing of charges the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail. The defence is also directed to cooperate during the trial and may not take steps to delay the trial only with a view to circumvent this order. With above observation and direction, this petition stands dismissed. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)