IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.25462 of 2010 MD.SHOAIB ANSARI son of Md. Sahabuddin , resident of village Kuryan Bazar, P.S. Dighwara, Dist. Saran at Chapra…….petitioner. Versus STATE OF BIHAR THRU.VIG. opposite party. ----------- 3 18-08-2010 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Special P.P. appearing for the Vigilance. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Special Case No. 66 (A) of 2008 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case no. 109 of 2008 dated 19.12.2008 registered under section 7/13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. According to the prosecution case one Rakesh Pandey of village Naili(Gaya District) submitted a written report to the Director General Electricity Vigilance Cell on 15.12.2008 stating therein that he had applied for three phase electric connection on 24.11.2008 for running 8 H.P. motor for a flour mill, but the accused persons are said to have demanded Rs. 10,000/- as bribe for providing electric connection. According to post trap memorandum Rs. 13,000/- was given to accused Vijay Kumar Mathur, Head Clerk, posted in the office of Assistant Electrical Engineer. He was arrested by the raiding party on 18.12. 2008. In presence of witnesses aforesaid Rs. 13,000/- was recovered from the possession of accused Vijay Kumar Mathur. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that admittedly the petitioner is not alleged to have received any amount from the aforesaid complainant Rakesh Pandey as bribe. According to the post trap memo also money was recovered from the possession of co-accused Vijay Kumar Mathur, Head Clerk posted in the office of Assistant Electrical Engineer. It is further highlighted that admittedly the petitioner was not found present at the - 2 - alleged P.O. Only allegation against him is that he being the Junior Electrical Engineer had also demanded bribe for providing electric connection to the said consumer. It is contended that the petitioner being junior engineer had already submitted the feasibility report in favour of the complainant Rakesh Kumar Pandey on 5.12.2008 i.e. much prior to the lodging of the present FIR and, therefore, allegation of demand of bribe by the petitioner is not believable. According to him admittedly co-accused Vijay Kumar Mathur is the main accused and he has already been granted bail by learned Special Judge, Vigilance-Ist, Patna by order dated 21.2.2009 on certain technical ground, though he had remained in jail for hardly about two months. It is submitted that allegation against the petitioner remains in the realm of suspicion and petitioner has voluntarily surrendered on 28.6.2010 and further main accused having been granted bail earlier after he had remained in judicial custody for about two months, the petitioner is also entitled to be released on bail by an order of this Court. Learned counsel for the Vigilance though opposed the prayer for bail made on behalf of the petitioner, but has fairly conceded that co- accused Vijay Kumar Mathur has already been granted bail by learned Special Judge, Vigilance- Ist, Patna after keeping him in judicial custody for about two months. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the above named petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of Special Judge Vigilang-Ist, Patna in connection with the - 3 - above noted case, subject to the conditions: (a) That one of the bailors must be Govt. servant or close family member of the petitioner who will file an affidavit in the court below showing 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 of hearing to all concerned. (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 bond of the petitioner. ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J. ) M.Rahman