IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.1471 of 2010 AJAY KUMAR PRASAD, Son of Late Baleshwar Prasad, r/o Near Digha Biscuit Factory, P.S. Digha Town and District- Patna ------------- Petitioner Versus STATE OF BIHAR THRU.VIG. ----------- 03 05-03-2010 Learned counsel for the petitioner files third supplementary affidavit on behalf of the petitioner. Let it be kept on record. Heard Mr. Y. V.Giri, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Vigilance Investigation Bureau. The petitioner is in custody in Vigilance Case No.114 of 2009 registered under Sections 409,120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner while pressing the bail petition firstly referred to paragraph nos.23 and 24 of the petition and tried to persuade the Court that this petitioner has been made victim by hatching larger conspiracy by the Vigilance authority in connivance with the complainant and the S.D.O.. Learned senior counsel in - 2 - support of his contention has referred to Annexure-13, which has been brought on record by filing third supplementary affidavit in the present petition, which has been filed for grant of bail to the petitioner in the present case. Besides the filing a voluminous bail petition, the petitioner had earlier filed two supplementary affidavits and third supplementary affidavit ,which has been brought on record containing certain complaints against the S.D.O.. Learned senior counsel submits that it was the S.D.O., who has concocted this case in connivance with the Vigilance Authority and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel while referring to Annexure-8 series to the petition further submits that the Vigilance Bureau is not competent to investigate cases against the employees/ officers of the Electricity Board. I have perused Annexure-8 series, referred to above and, prima facie, I am of the view that while hearing the bail petition, I need not take notice of this fact. In the present case, the allegation is that the petitioner being a General Manager in the Electricity Board along with co-accused was demanding huge amount from - 3 - the complainant and, thereafter, a complaint was made by the complainant to the Vigilance Investigation Bureau. On the basis of complaint, an F.I.R. was lodged and pre-trap Memorandum was prepared. The allegation, as per complaint, was that the petitioner was demanding Rs.1 Lacs as illegal gratification from the complainant to favour him . After preparing pre-trap memorandum, a trap was laid and during the trap Rs.1 Lac was recovered from the petitioner which was kept in the briefcase of the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner along with co-accused was apprehended and in the Sodium Carbonate Solution the petitioner was allowed to dip his fingers and after dipping his fingers the water turned into pink. The recovered currency notes were tallied with pre-trap memorandum and, thereafter the petitioner and the co-accused were arrested. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the seizure memo, the petitioner had put his signature on 15.11.2009, whereas seizure memo was prepared on 14.11.2009. He further submits that though currency notes were recovered from the briefcase of the petitioner, the seizure of the briefcase has not been shown in the seizure - 4 - memo and on these grounds, learned senior counsel prays for grant of bail to the petitioner. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 14.11.2009 and, as such, he may be granted privilege of bail. Since the petitioner, who was holding a high post in the Electricity Board, was apprehended during the trap and the bribe money i.e. Rs.1 lac was recovered from the briefcase of the petitioner and the petitioner has been charged for the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, I am of the view that the petitioner does not deserve any sympathy from this Court and, as such, his prayer for bail is rejected. Since the petitioner is in jail from the month of November, 2009, it would not be appropriate to keep the petitioner behind the bar without any trial. Learned counsel for the Vigilance Investigation Bureau submits that in this case after obtaining prosecution sanction order from the competent authority, chargesheet has already been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner also supports this stand of the Vigilance and he referred to - 5 - Annexure 9 to his first supplementary affidavit which is a copy of the chargesheet submitted by the Vigilance Investigation Bureau. Learned counsel for the Vigilance informed the Court that the police papers have already been supplied to the accused. Accordingly, it is desirable to direct the trial court i.e. the Special Judge (Vigilance) to immediately hear the parties on the charge and initiate the trial and conclude the same preferably within a period of six months from the date of framing of the charges. If the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period without any fault of the petitioner, he shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail. It is further directed that the defence will also render full co-operation in the trial and will not unnecessarily linger the case with a view to circumvent this order. With the above observation and direction, the prayer for bail is rejected. NKS/- ( Rakesh Kumar, J)