IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.30383 of 2008 RAMJEE Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 25.08.2008 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. Petitioner is one of the accused in Vigilance P.S.Case No. 12 of 2000 (Special Case No. 06 of 2002/ 03 of 2000) registered for the offence under sections 420/465/467/468/477A/109/120B of the Indian Penal Code as also section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and section 4(2 of Bihar Non Govt. Physical Teachers’ Training Colleges and Non govt. Primary Teachers Education Colleges (Control & Regulation) Act. The allegations levelled in the first information report is to the effect that in conspiracy of the accused persons, the Muslim Minority Ahmadia B.Ed College, Katihar was running on the basis of fake and false documents, and permission was granted to the aforesaid college by flouting the rules and regulations meant for recognition of such institutions and as such the authorities of the State govt. and the University as well as the college under conspiracy cheated the students and misappropriated huge amount. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner, in sum and substance, submits that the petitioner at the material time was Deputy Secretary in the Government of Bihar in the department of Education and was not a member of the Inspecting Team constituted by the N.C.T.E. or the Inspecting Team constituted of the State Government. It is further submitted that notwithstanding the above, the recommendations made by the Inspection team was never acted upon and no student was permitted admission. The petitioner submits that in the Education Department he performed his duty in usual course and made the endorsement in the file, however, he was not the decision making authority with regard to affiliation or non-affiliation. Learned counsel further submits that one of the members of the Inspecting team namely, Dashrath Tiwary a co-accused has been allowed anticipatory bail as per the order dated 28.07.2008 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 27296 of 2008, copy of the order has been annexed as annexure-3 to the supplementary affidavit. It is, therefore, submitted that petitioner deserves to be allowed anticipatory bail. Learned counsel appearing for the State (Vigilance), on the other hand, submits that accused persons including this petitioner in conspiracy got the recommendation for affiliation of the college in question fraudulently, however, the recognitions were not granted 3 since the recommendations made were not acted upon. In the circumstances, petitioner is not entitled to be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail. Having considered the submissions, as noticed above, and in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from today, the petitioner, namely, Ramjee 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, Patna, in connection with Special Case No. 06 of 2002/ 03 of 2000 arising out of Vigilance P.S.Case No. 12 of 2000 subject to the conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is, however, made clear that petitioner will co- operate with the prosecution and will not misuse the privilege of bail, and in case it is found that the petitioner is not co-operating, the State will be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of his bail on reasonable grounds. Manish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)