IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.26461 of 2008 K.P.SINHA @ KALIKA PRASAD SINHA Versus STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH VIGILANCE ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr.Advocate With Mr. Raju Giri & Mr Pranav Kumar, Advocates For the Opp. Party: Mr Rakesh Kumar, I/C Spl.P.P. (Vigilance) ------- 5. 26.8.2008 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State (Vigilance). The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Special Case No.22/2000 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No.16 of 2000 for the alleged offences under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 193,109 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the case in a nutshell is to the effect that the present case has been lodged against the petitioner on the basis of the Assessment Order passed by the Income Tax authorities vide Assessment Order dated 30th of November, 1999 holding to the effect that the 2 petitioner was possessing movable and immovable property worth Rupees three crore and odd. According to the petitioner, there is no other basis for registering the F.I.R. or investigating the case from any other source of information save and except the order passed by the Assessing Officer on the Income Tax Return being submitted for the Assessment Years 1988- 89 to 1998-99. It is submitted that the above assessment order is not final as the petitioner had filed an application for rectification of the Assessment Order in view of the valuation report on 23rd of February, 2001, as contained in Annexure 7 to the rejoinder, which is pending and required to be disposed of as per the order/direction of CIT (Appeal) dated 8.2.2005 (Annexure 6 to the rejoinder). The petitioner filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal against that part of the order of CIT (Appeal) affirming the order of the Assessing Officer. The same is also pending. Therefore, in a nutshell the submission is to the effect that very basis of lodging the F.I.R. is subject to the outcome of the assessment by the Income Tax Department 3 considering his rectification application. It is further submitted that other family members, who are also made co-accused, have been allowed anticipatory bail by this Court as detailed in paragraph 15 of this application. Learned counsel submits that notwithstanding the merits, the petitioner is aged more than 72 years and suffering from serious ailments, which would be appearing from the medical prescriptions vide Annexure 4 series and since the charge sheet has been submitted, no further investigation is pending. In the above circumstances, prayer has been made for grant of anticipatory bail. Mr Rakesh Kumar, I/C Special Public Prosecutor (Vigilance), on the other hand, submits that as on date, there is a prima facie case against the petitioner for the alleged offences for which the F.I.R. has been registered against him after making a preliminary inquiry. He submits that it is specifically alleged that during the service period the petitioner amassed huge movable and immovable property. As regards petitioner’s submission that the assessment order is passed on the estimated value of the properties and 4 not on the report of the Valuation Cell of the Income Tax Department and also the submission of the petitioner that he is aged about 72 years and suffering from serious ailment, Mr Kumar submitted that those pleas, the petitioner can very well take in a regular bail application which shall be considered in detail by the court below considering the materials on record and as such, no case for grant of anticipatory bail has been made out by the petitioner. Upon consideration of the rival submissions, it is directed that for a period of four months, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner and, in the meantime, in case he surrenders and makes a regular application for bail in the court below after serving a copy on the Special Public Prosecutor (Vigilance) in advance, the same would be considered and disposed of on the same day without being prejudiced by the present order taking into consideration the materials brought on the record. It is, however, made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. 5 The anticipatory bail application is dismissed with the above observations/directions. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)