IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.18022 of 2009 1. SANJAY KUMAR BHARTIYA 2. NUPUR BHARTIYA 3. PRASHANT BHARTIYA 4. RITU BHARTIYA. ----- PETITIONERS. Versus 1 STATE OF BIHAR 2 THE VIGILANCE(CABINET), CIRCULAR ROAD, PATNA THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR GENERAL. ---- OPP. PARTIES. ----------- 02 09.09.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the Vigilance. Petitioners, who are 04 in numbers and said to be the Directors of ‘Dina Iron Steel Limited’, have approached this court seeking anticipatory bail in a case instituted under diverse Sections of the Penal Code as also under Sections 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. Allegation is that the company, in which the petitioners are Directors, was grossly involved in committing theft of electricity/energy by tampering with the meter installed by the Electricity Board. Mr. Giri, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that from the inspection report (annexure-3), it would appear that the lock of the room, in which the meter was situated/located, was found intact. The allegation is that the outer seals of the meter were also found not tampered with but there were tampering with the meter inside. The Vigilance Department sealed the meter and sent for its 2 testing at Bhopal. The inspection report indicates that there were tampering with the meter which resulted in committing theft of energy. He also drew attention of this court to different orders passed by this court on the writ petition filed by the petitioners. One of such order is Annexure-4. It appears the meter testing report which provides basis of the F.I.R. was put to issue in the said writ case. This court under order dated 26.09.2008, adjourned the matter enabling the learned counsel for the Electricity Board to file appropriate counter affidavit. As an interim major an order was passed directing the authorities not to take coercive step against the petitioners. It further appears that the petitioners have also filed a Cr. Writ application calling in question the filing of the F.I.R. itself. The said matter is also pending before this court. It is next contended that looking to the allegations contained in the F.I.R., it would appear that there is no allegation of participation of any of the Directors in the alleged crime. It is further highlighted that petitioner nos. 2 and 4 are the wife of the petitioner nos. 1 and 3 respectively. It is submitted that they have been put on the board only to share maximum profit. They are, thus, the passive Directors on the Board. From the impugned order, it appears that a plea was taken by the Vigilance that they are facing serious difficulty in investigating the case as the petitioners are evading arrest and have not turned up for assisting the investigation. 3 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Vigilance submits that the petitioner’s company is habitual offender. Earlier also a case relating to theft of energy was lodged against them. New meter was installed which was also subsequently found to have been tampered with within few months of its/their installation(s). He, however, does not dispute the position that the non-appearance of the petitioners before the Investigating Authority is an obstacle in proper investigation of the case. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this court proposes to dispose of the present application in the following manner:- Let the petitioners above named surrender in the court below within a period of 03 weeks from today whereafter they shall be released on bail for a period of 08 weeks from the date of release on their furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- ( twenty thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Special Judge Vigilance-I, Patna in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case no. 66 of 2008 corresponding to Special Case no. 42 of 2008, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr. P.C. It is made clear that on expiry of period of 08 weeks the present order shall cease to exist. This privilege of bail is thus for a limited period on the conditions that they shall appear before the Investigating Authority/Investigating Officer as and 4 when called upon and assist the Authority in proper investigation of the case. It shall also be open to the petitioners to satisfy the Authorities about there non-involvement in the offence. It shall also be open to the petitioner nos. 2 and 4 to convince and satisfy the Investigating Authority about the role they play in the day to day affairs of the company as the Directors. With these directions aforesaid, the present application stands disposed of. Sym/ (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)