IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.26557 of 2009 BIRENDRA MOHAN SAHAY, SON OF LATE RAJ BALLABH SAHAY, RESIDENT OF RAJ BALLABH NIWAS, ‘D’ BLOCK, KADAM KUAN, P.S. KADAM KUAN, DISTRICT PATNA.-PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR(THROUGH CBI, PATNA) ---- OPPOSITE PARTY For the Petitioner:- Mr. Ashok Kumar Choudhary, Advocate For the C.B.I. :- Mr. Bipin Kumar Sinha, Advocate ----------- 2 16.2.2010 This application has been filed against the order dated 24.6.2009 passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I. (South Bihar), Patna in Special Case No. 4 of 2006/R.C. No. 9(A) of 2006 by which the Special Judge, C.B.I. (South Bihar), Patna rejected petitioner’s application filed under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and for discharge of the petitioner. The prosecution case in short is that the complainant had applied for bank loan for which it is said that the petitioner who is the Bank Manager and co-accused Devendra Kumar who is the Loan Clerk had demanded a sum of Rs. 8,000/- as bribe. A trap team was prepared and after verification, money was recovered from Devendra Kumar who disclosed that he was taking money on his own behalf and on behalf of the petitioner. It is also said that Devendra Kumar made a phone call to the petitioner that the payment has been made. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the money was not recovered from the petitioner and on the basis of the statement made at the time of trap, it cannot be alleged that the petitioner was involved in demanding bribe. Besides which, it is submitted that the co-accused Devendra Kumar resiled from his statement and has denied that he had demanded or accepted bribe and, 2 therefore, the question of conniving with the petitioner does not arise in this case. The further submission on behalf of the petitioner is that the loan was sanctioned on 18.3.2006 whereas the trap case was on 20.3.2006 and as such there was no occasion for payment of money as bribe. All these aspects of the matter can only be dealt with and considered in a full fledged trial because it refers to the defence of the petitioner and would also depend on the evidence which ultimately transpired during the trial. I do not find any illegality in the order refusing to discharge the petitioner. This application is dismissed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)