IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.35855 of 2009 RABINDRA PRASAD SINGH SON OF LATE TULSI SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- Jaitipur, P.S.- BIHTA, DISTRICT- PATNA Versus STATE OF BIHAR THRUGH VIGILANCE ----------- 2 15.10.2009 Heard the learned counsels for the petitioner and the Vigilance. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. Allegation against the petitioner is of possessing an asset disproportionate to his known sources of income. As per the prosecution case total emoluments the petitioner could have earned was about Rs. 24,94,883/- during the whole of his service period under consideration i.e. from 28.06.1975 to April, 2009. As per the prosecution case the petitioner could not have saved more than rupees eight lacs and odd after making the necessary expenditure during the aforesaid period, however on verification it was found that the petitioner was in possession of property including the amount available in his bank account to the tune of rupees eighteen lacs and odd, and as such, the petitioner is alleged to be in possession of about ten lacs and odd in excess of his known source of income. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the prosecution has not verified the documents and the source of income of the petitioner and the fact the alleged excess amount did not belong to him since it is inclusive of the income of his two earning sons and wife, who are submitting their income tax return, which has been accepted by the Income Tax Department. Learned counsel appearing for the vigilance submits that on raid being conducted in the house of the petitioner a sum of rupees eighty thousands in cash was found and on being enquired the wife of the petitioner stated that the said money belongs to her mother. It is further submitted that on perusal of the acknowledgement for submitting the income tax return in respect of one son of the petitioner namely, Jayanendra Kumar, it would appear that there is no claim for deduction in respect of investment made in the insurance policies. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on perusal of the acknowledgement of the income tax return, it would appear that the gross total income was of Rs. 92,000/-, and as such, indication of any deduction is of no legal consequence. Learned counsel further submits that on proper verification and perusal of the documents and sources of income, it would appear that the allegations are absolutely baseless, however the petitioner is in custody since 12th May, 2009 and there is absolutely no chance of his absconding or tampering with the evidence. Besides the above, the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the prosecution in early conclusion of the trial. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that let the petitioner, above named, 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 Judge, Vigilance-I Court, Patna in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 84 of 2009. Manish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)