IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.5070 of 2009 SURESH PRASAD son of Satya Narayan Prasad, resident of village- Sawali, P.S.-Baikunthpur, P.O.-Khajuhatti, Dist.-Gopalganj. At present working and posted as District Co- operative Officer, Motihari. Versus STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE.VIG.ILANCE, BIHAR, PATNA ----------- 2. 23.4.2009. Heard Mr.Prem Kumar Jha learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Rakesh Kumar learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance. The petitioner is sole named accused of a case which has been registered under sections 7, 13(2) read with sections 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner has been apprehended while accepting bribe money of Rs.11,000/- by a vigilance team. One Ram Rekha Prasad has complained that the petitioner was demanding money for nominating him as Chairman of PACS. He complained it to the vigilance. The complaint was verified. A pre trap memorandum was prepared after the complaint was found to be prima facie true. The bribe money was tendered to the complainant for giving it to the public servant when it is demanded. The vigilance team later on apprehended the petitioner while accepting bribe money. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact the complainant was not at all eligible for appointment as Chairman of PACS. So, there was no occasion at all for giving money. The complainant himself is an accused of at least seventeen cases details of which has been mentioned in para-9 of the petition. He is an absconder. A post trap memorandum was prepared in absence of the - 2 - complainant which is apparent from the fact that it does not contain his signature. A condition precedent of complaint is that it should be affidavited. That was not done and the petitioner has been apprehended on 30.9.2008 and since then he is in custody. Besides that, it has been submitted that the petitioner is in custody in this case without proper remand. Charge sheet has been submitted on 27.11.2008 and without taking cognizance he has been remanded on various dates which is illegal. Learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance submits that cognizance has been taken. So, now it is not illegal remand and it is valid remand. Further submission is that recovery of huge money from the house of the petitioner shows that bribe money has been recovered from his possession. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the above named petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Special Judge, Vigilance, Muzaffarpur/concerned court in connection with Special Case No.54 of 2008 arising out of Vigilance P.S.Case No.75 of 2008. Md.S. (Shyam Kishore Sharma,J.)