IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.28408 of 2011 Vinod Kumar Vimal alias Binod Kumar Vimal, son of Rameshwar Prasad Chauhan, resident of Village- Shahbajpur, Police Station-Sitamarhi, District- Nawadah…. ……Petitioner Versus The State Of Bihar through Vigilance…. …..Opposite Party ……………. For the Petitioner : Mr. Kamal Nayan Chaubey, Sr. Advocate Mr. Pramod Kumar, Mr. Ravi Bhardwaj, Advocates For the Vigilance : Mr. Arvind Kumar, Law Officer Vigilance …………………. 9 30.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Vigilance Investigation Bureau. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered under Sections 7/13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. As per the allegation, the petitioner, who was the Sub-Divisional Education Officer, DalsinghSari, Samastipur, called the complainant at Mithapur on 06.02.2010 by side of Aman Hotel near Bus Stand and demanded Rs.50,000/- to return the documents which were taken by him during the course of inspection. When the complainant showed his inability, he again demanded Rs.25,000/- and the rest amount in instalments. Thereafter, the trap was arranged on 2 10.02.2010 and he was apprehended with bribe money of Rs.25,000/-. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he had earlier filed application for grant of bail which was rejected by the court below and, thereafter, he had preferred Cr. Misc. No. 12202 of 2010 before this Court. During the pendency of the aforesaid application, by order dated 20.04.2010 on the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner under Sections 167(2) and 309(2) of the Cr. P.C., the trial court had released him on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- till the cognizance is taken in view of the fact that till that date no sanction order could be obtained and produced on behalf of the prosecution as required under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Thereafter, a prayer was made before this Court for permitting the petitioner to withdraw Cr. Misc. No. 12202 of 2010 which was allowed and the application was dismissed as withdrawn. However, it appears that subsequently sanction order was obtained and produced by the prosecuting agency and cognizance was taken on 3 20.08.2010 and, on the next date, i.e., on 27.08.2010, as the petitioner was absent, non-bailable warrant was issued against the petitioner. The petitioner preferred Cr. Misc. No. 36675/2010 challenging the aforesaid order, however, the same was disposed of by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.07.2011 granting liberty to the petitioner to file application for bail after his surrender with a direction to the concerned court to dispose of the same in accordance with law on its own merit on the same day itself on which the petition is filed. However, the court concerned has rejected the prayer on the ground that in place of placing the case on merit, the petitioner has raised technical points and the High Court had directed the concerned court to dispose of the petition only considering the merit of the case. Mr. Kamal Nayan Chaubey, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the order dated 20.04.2010 could not be considered as the order of grant of provisional bail even though it is written in the order that the bail was only till cognizance is taken in the concerned case. The 4 next issue raised on behalf of the petitioner is that after grant of bail, the petitioner was not required to remain present on each and every date in view of the fact that merely incomplete charge-sheet has been filed by the prosecutors which was the reason for grant of such bail under Section 309(2) of the Cr.P.C. Thus, after taking cognizance, summons or notice intimating the same should have been issued to the petitioner in place of issuing non-bailable warrant on the next day itself as that date was not within his knowledge. It is next contended that the court below has not considered the order dated 22.07.2011 in its proper perspective inasmuch as the direction was given to dispose of the bail application in accordance with law on its own merit. However, the bail has been rejected on the ground that the petition for bail filed on behalf of the petitioner is not based on the merit of the case. Learned counsel submitted that aforesaid direction to the the court below necessarily means that the order should be passed in accordance with law and merit of the grounds which have been raised on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail but the application has been 5 dismissed taking a hyper-technical view. At the time of hearing of this application, a copy of the bail application along with the order dated 22.07.2011 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 36675 of 2010 was produced on behalf of the petitioner to demonstrate that a prayer was made on behalf of the petitioner either to allow him to continue on previous bail or he may be granted fresh bail. Thus, it is contended that there was no occasion for the court below to reject the prayer on the ground that point of covering of the merit of the case has not been raised on behalf of the petitioner. It has further been submitted that petitioner has already remained in custody for more than six months and cognizance has already been taken in this matter. It has also been urged that the petitioner has not misused the privilege of his release. In support of his aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions of Supreme Court in Raghubir Singh and others, V. State of Bihar, (AIR 1987 Supreme Court 149) and Free Legal Aid Committee, Jamshedpur Vrs. State of Bihar (1982 BBCJ (SC) 6 35). Learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance Investigation Bureau submits that the petitioner had knowledge of the proceeding as he was pursuing his matter for release of his mobile which was seized by the authorities. However, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case that the petitioner has remained in custody for more than six months and now cognizance has already been taken in the matter and it is nobody’s case that he had misused the privilege of bail that was granted earlier, the petitioner, Vinod Kumar Vimal alias Binod Kumar Vimal, is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Spl. Judge, Vigilance Ist, Patna, in connection with Spl. Case No. 10/2010 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 13/2010 with a further condition that one of the bailors of the petitioner must be his father. It is made clear that petitioner would be well represented on the date fixed 7 by the court below for the purpose of framing of charge and, if charges are framed against the petitioner then also during the course of the trial. If the petitioner fails to remain present on two consecutive dates during the course of the trial without any reasonable cause being shown, the court concerned would be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of his bail bonds. Sanjay-II ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)