IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.4229 of 2009 Kumud Ranjan Paul, Son of Bhudev Chandra Paul, Resident of Village Sarbanangola Pally, P.S. & Dist. Malda, West Bengal. ----- Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar ------- Opp. Party ----------- 2 8.5.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the Vigilance. This is the second attempt on the part of the petitioner for anticipatory bail in Vigilance P.S. Case No. 6/2000. Earlier, this Court by an order dated 2.8.2000 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 16638 of 2000 had rejected such prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would submit that certain documents which were there already available at the time of rejection of the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner were not noticed by this Court. In the opinion of this Court, that in fact cannot be a ground for seeking anticipatory bail on a fresh material. Normally, this Court would be reluctant to grant anticipatory bail to a person whose such prayer has been rejected on merit. 2 This Court is rather amazed to find from the supplementary affidavit filed today that one S.K.Jha, Deputy Supdt. of Police in the letter dated 3.11.2004 addressed to the Headmaster, Nayabazar High School of the Malda district wherein the petitioner is said to be functioning as a Teacher had given in writing to the effect “A criminal case no. 6/2000 has been registered in Vigilance P.S. but Shri Kumud Ranjan Paul is not an accused of the abovesaid case. The genuineness of the degrees can be verified from the concerned university.” It goes without saying that the observations made by Mr. S.K.Jha is contrary to the contents of the First Information Report where the petitioner is a named accused. It, therefore, goes to show that the said Deputy Superintendent of Police either on his own or under some impression had written this wholly unauthorized letter only for helping the petitioner. This is a serious matter and must be looked into by the Director General of Vigilance. 3 Be that as it may, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner for the reasons recorded above. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner, namely, Kumud Ranjan Paul is hereby rejected. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)