IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.45978 of 2009 DR.VIJAY KUMAR Versus STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH VIGILANCE ----------- 02 05.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Vigilance. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 25.6.2009 granting him regular bail till cognizance. Cognizance has been taken on 26.8.2009. The petitioner is an accused in a Special case No. 31 of 2008, arising out of Patna Vigilance Case No. 42 of 2009, under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with Sections 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was taken into custody on 25.5.2009 on allegations of having demanded and taken Rs.3,000/- illegal gratification, allegedly caught red handed in a trap. He was taken into custody on the same day. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the conditions imposed while granting bail is wholly unwarranted and not in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the Vigilance Department urges that since bail came to be granted in absence of the sanction order which 2 prevented cognizance, there is no infirmity in the order. Grant of sanction was the responsibility of the Department of Vigilance. It cannot take shelter for its own lapses to find fault with the petitioner. If the Court below opined that the continued custody of the petitioner was without the sanction of law in absence of order of cognizance, the Department of Vigilance has a lot to answer for its own in house defence. Insofar as the impugned order is concerned, this Court finds that it is wholly beyond the powers conferred on the Court to grant bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C. Bail is granted by an order after the satisfaction of the Court for reasons to be discussed by which on conditions that it may deem fit and proper. The conditions deemed fit and proper are decided in context of the nature of the allegations, the kind of evidence prima facie available, the possible conviction that can follow, the nature of the punishment that may follow, the propensity to crime if released, etc. Considering of all these either bail may be granted or bail may not be granted. If the conditions for bail be violated the Court possesses adequate power to cancel the bail. 3 This Court is satisfied that the impugned order has nothing to do with the bail on merits. The Court was satisfied apparently on merits that the petitioner was entitled to bail. Even otherwise, if there was a legal compulsion to grant bail in absence of justification for a continued custody without cognizance, it cannot impose conditions of a nature to negate its own very order by an automatic effect without any default on part of the petitioner. Needless to add that the court possesses sufficient powers to cancel the bail should the occasion so arise. Presently, there appears to be no such case. The impugned order dated 25.6.2009 to the extent that its limit the bail till cognizance is only quashed. The application is allowed. The petitioner shall be deemed to continue on bail upon the same bail bonds. Let the order be communicated to the court concerned through Fax at the costs of the petitioner. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)