IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.16423 of 2008 NAVIN KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR THRUGH VIGILANCE ----------- 10 06.08.2008 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State (vigilance). Petitioner is an accused in a case registered for the offence under sections 420/467/468/469/461/120 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 13(2), 13(1)(D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that on perusal of the allegations levelled against this petitioner, it would appear that the allegations are to the effect that this petitioner recommended five persons for their engagement as orderly etc. on daily wages and the appointment was made by the then Managing Director. Similar recommendations were made by other Manager like the petitioner and concerned persons were also engaged. Later on, on being detected that such appointment were not as per the rule, the appointments were cancelled. Some of the persons, whose appointments were cancelled, assailed the order before the Labour Court, who directed for their reinstatement along with all back wages. The Corporation assailed the award of the Labour Court by filing writ petition vide C.W.J.C.No. 10097 of 2001 before this Court, and this Court by order dated 13.08.2007 2 (Annexure-5 to the second supplementary affidavit) allowed time to file counter affidavit with direction to the Corporation to pay the workers in terms of the award of the Labour Court with effect from the date of filing of the writ petition. Mr. P.K.Jaipuriyar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the said writ petition is still pending. He further submits that on perusal of Annexure-4 to the supplementary affidavit, it would appear that the sanction for prosecution of the petitioner under the aforesaid provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act has been refused by the sanctioning authority by order dated 14.07.2008 observing that there is no material to accord sanction. The sanctioning authority, however, observed that police did not brought anything on record to attract the provisions of alleged offence of cheating, forgery, criminal conspiracy etc, and as such, the sanction for prosecution of the petitioner under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act has become not permissible. As regards the offence of cheating, committing forgery or criminal conspiracy, the allegations levelled does not attract the aforesaid offence. He further submits that persons whose appointments were cancelled allegedly on the ground of irregularity were later regularized. Learned counsel appearing for the State 3 (Vigilance), on the other hand, submits that although sanction for prosecution of the petitioner under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act has not been accorded, but none the less the petitioner is alleged to have committed offence of cheating, forgery and criminal conspiracy for which cognizance has been taken by the competent Court. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the order dated 21.05.2008 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 17530 of 2008, whereby the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of co-accused namely, Ram Rup Ram, an Assistant, who was also proceeded similarly, was rejected. As such, this petitioner also does not deserve to be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply to the above, submitted that when the anticipatory bail application of said Ram Rup Ram was rejected at that time there was no order refusing sanction for prosecution under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act since the order refusing sanction was passed on 14.07.2008, as contained in Annexure-4 to the supplementary affidavit. As such, the case of the petitioner should be considered in the light of the further developments. Considering 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 4 period of four weeks from today, the petitioner, Navin Kumar 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 Vigilance Judge, Ist-cum-Additional District Judge IV, Patna, in connection with Special Case No. 93 of 1994 arising out of Vigilance Police Station Case No. 28 of 1994 subject to the conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Manish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)