IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.35919 of 2010 BIRA RAM S/O LATE SHEOPUJAN RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-SARAFAR, P.O.-JAMORHI, P.S.-TARARI, DISTRICT- BHOJPUR(BIHAR),PRESENTLY RESIDING AT Qr.No.H/39. ARGORA HOUSING COLONY,DISTRICT- RANCHI (JHARKHAND). Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4 26.3.2011 Let, a supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner to day in the court, be kept on the record. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a criminal prosecution registered under sections 409,467,468,471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that at the relevant time,the petitioner was posted and working as Executive Engineer, Sasaram,Camp Dehri-on – Sone in the District of Rohtas in theTubewell Division under Department of Irrigation, and he is not named in the F.I.R. vide Annexure-I as an accused. According to the prosecution case, co-accused Raj Kumar Singh was appointed as contractor for sinking Government tubewell in the District of Rohtas and for that purpose he was made an advance of Rs.8,68,000/-. However, during course of inspection it was found that work worth Rs.4,04,000/-only was completed by the aforesaid contractor 2 and he had received excess amount of Rs.4,64,000/-. During course of investigation the involvement of the petitioner and some other government officials also transpired for commission of crime in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that apart from criminal prosecution, the petitioner was subjected to departmental proceeding also for his omission and commission for execution of certain scheme of the government in the district of Rohtas. On conclusion of the departmental proceeding , punishment of censor was inflicted upon him and it was further directed that an amount of Rs.1,89,580.35 shall be recovered from the petitioner. The order of punishment in the departmental proceeding has been brought on record as Annexure-3 to this application. By filing supplementary affidavit it has been stated that the aforesaid entire amount of Rs.1,89,580.35 has already been recovered from the salary of the petitioner. It has also been highlighted that the petitioner is now at the verge of retirement. Be that as it may, in view of the fact that petitioner was subjected to the departmental proceeding and a punishment of censor has been inflicted upon him and an 3 amount of Rs.1,89,580.35 has already been recovered from his salary, prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed, subject to verification of fact about recovery of the aforesaid amount by the court below. The petitioner, Bira Ram, in the event of his arrest/surrender before the court below within four weeks from today shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram, in connection with Akodhi Gola P.S. Case No.29/03 dated 3.5.2003 subject to the conditions laid down under section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. as also subject to further conditions that: (A) one of the bailors must be a government servant or a close family members of the petitioner, who will file an affidavit in the court below showings his/her relationship with the petitioner, (B) if the petitioner is found involved in same and similar nature of cases in future, then in that case the informant/ prosecution shall be at liberty to file a petition for cancellation of the bail of the petitioner, and if such a petition is filed, the court below would be obliged to dispose of the same in accordance with law after giving opportunity 4 of hearing to all concerned and ( C ) the petitioner shall make regular pairvi in the court below in the present case either by appearing himself in person or through representation by his lawyer on each and every dates, and if on two consecutive dates petitioner fails to make pairvi, then the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner. It is further directed that the learned Magistrate at the time of acceptance of bail bonds of the petitioner shall direct the petitioner to produce relevant record/document within a reasonable time fixed by him to prove that, as a matter of fact, amount of Rs.1,89.580.35 has already been recovered from his salary. If the learned Magistrate is satisfied about recovery, then the petitioner shall be allowed to remain on bail on the terms and conditions indicated above. However, if the learned Magistrate comes to a finding that the aforesaid amount has not been recovered from the salary of the petitioner and the statement made before this Court is false, then in that case learned Magistrate shall be obliged to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner and he shall be taken into custody, whereafter the petitioner will be at 5 liberty to seek regular bail, if so advised. Anilkrs.sinha (Birendra Prasad Verma,J.)