IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.38721 of 2008 ---- Dadan Lal son of Late Jaipal Lal, Resident of Village- Angora, Police Station- Piro, District- Bhojpur ….. Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar. ….. Opposite Party **** 4 01.10.2008 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State (Viglance). Petitioner is an accused for the offence under sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 471, 477A, 120B, 129, 201 of the Indian Penal Code and section 5(2) read with section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 corresponding to section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The allegation against the petitioner, in nut-shell, is to the effect that while he was working as Forest Range Officer in the Forest Division at Bhabhua it is alleged that co-accused the concerned Divisional Forest Officer during the material time used to place the orders for supply of insecticides i.e. five per cent aldrin for its consumption in plantation under the scheme of the Government. Petitioner and other staff are alleged to have received those insecticides against the supply orders. Further allegation is that neither the firm to which supply orders - 2 - were issued was in existence nor any supply was made. As such, the concerned forest officials i.e. Divisional Forest Officer, Range Officer, office staff in conspiracy misappropriated the respective amounts against the supply orders, as detailed in the first information report/ charge-sheet. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the supply orders were issued by the concerned Divisional Forest Officer i.e. co-accused pursuant to the decision taken by the Purchase Committee in which petitioner had no role to play. It is further submitted that the insecticides which were alleged to have been received by the petitioner have been duly entered into the stock register and besides that the insecticides were consumed in plantation for which it was received and there is no material on record to suggest that the insecticides in question were not used in plantation. It is further contended that the co-accused namely, S.S.K.Bishwas has been allowed anticipatory bail by this court as per the order dated 05.07.1995 (Annexure-2) along with other accused persons named in the order as also the details given in paragraph 22 of the petition. It is also contended that the petitioner retired in the year 1992 and by now he has become very old and weak aged about 75 years. - 3 - Learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the firm which supplied the insecticides was found to be fake and fictitious. The supply orders were placed to those firms by the concerned Divisional Forest Officer in conspiracy with the supplier i.e. the co-accused Arun Kumar Murarka and payment orders were issued by them. No supply of insecticides were made and as such the receipt of those insecticides by the petitioner and other accused persons were equally fake and merely a paper transaction. Having considered the submissions, as noticed above, the allegations made in the first information report, the certified copy of the charge sheet, and in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from today, the petitioner, namely, Dadan Lal be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, Vigilance I, Patna in connection with Vigilance Police Station Case No. 27 of 1994 subject to the conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Manish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)