IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.31252 of 2008 RAJENDRA PRASAD v. The State of Bihar ----------- 3. 22.10.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for theVigilance. The petitioner, who is stated to be the Agent of the Contractor in question, apprehends arrest in a Police case under Sections 409, 420 and other provisions of the Penal Code and Sections 13(2), 13(1)©(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Learned counsel submits that the allegations are for an occurrence of 1977 for which F.I.R. was lodged in 1995. The public servants accused are already dead. Counsel for the Vigilance submits that the petitioner has moved anticipatory bail ten years later. The allegations are that of the consignments received on transportation through Railways, ten were in sealed condition and one consignment was delivered loose for which no protest was lodged with the Railways, reflective of a dishonest intention. It is the prosecution which has itself to be blamed for the privilege of anticipatory being granted to the petitioner. Let the petitioner, abovenamed surrender in the court below within a period of six weeks from today, when he shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Special Judge, Vigilancve I, Patna in Vigilance Sadar (Patna) P.S. Case No. 064 of 1995 of 1977-80 corresponding to the Special Case No. 42/95. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.) 2