IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.10503 of 2009 SURESH PRASAD SON OF SATYA NARAYAN PRASAD RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SAWALI ,P.S.BAIKUNTHPUR,P.O.KHAJUHATTI, DISTRICT GOPALGANJ AT PRESENT WORKING AND POSTED AS DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE OFFICER,MOTIHARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR THRU. VIG. ----------- 3/ 22.5.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Addl.P.P. and learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance. The petitioner seeks bail in a case which has been registered for offences under Sections 7,13(2) read with Section 13(1)(E) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner was posted as District Co- operative Officer-Cum-Registrar, East Champaran at Motihari. During the period of investigation by the Vigilance Police, he was found to be possessing property beyond the reasonable source of income. Accordingly, the present case was registered on 1.12.2008 and the petitioner was remanded in this case on 6.12.2008. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though chargesheet has been submitted on 30th January,2009 but after several adjournments, cognizance has not been taken as yet. If the cognizance is not taken, then the petitioner cannot be detained in custody. This proposition of law has been settled in catena of decisions. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions reported in the cases of Surendra Prasad Vrs.The State of Bihar reported in 2008(2) BBCJ (V) 491, Sri S.K.Lal,Spl.Judge, CBI (AHD),Patna Vrs.Lalu Prasad and others reported in 1998(1)PLJR 782, in Pawan Kumar Jaiswal Vrs.The State of Bihar reported in 1999(2)PLJR 364 and in the case of Raj Kishore Prasad Vrs.State of Bihar and another reported in 1996(1) PLJR (SC) 123 and he has submitted that considering the above, this court has granted anticipatory bail/regular bail to many accused persons. One of such orders, has been annexed as annexure 12 to this application. While opposing the prayer for bail of the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance has submitted that if, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the remand is illegal, then the petitioner should challenge the illegal detention. If the remand itself becomes void, then it will not be proper to detain the petitioner in custody. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, let the above named petitioner be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Muzaffarpur in Special Case No. 68 of 2008 arising out of Vigilance P.S.Case No. 104 of 2008. Tahir/- ( Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.)