IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.10739 of 2010 JAI NANDAN SINGH, Son of Late Ram Charitra Singh, Permanent Resident of Village Sajanpura, P.S. Bahera, District Darbhanga. Presently Residing at House No. 8, Bikramshila Cooperative Society, Hanuman Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Patrakar Nagar, Kankarbagh, Patna, District Patna. ………Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR, through C.B.I., ACB, Patna. ……….Opposite Party 10/- 21.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Bipin Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the C.B.I. The petitioner is one of the two named accused in this case carries allegation that he being an employee of State Bank of India on post of Special Assistant, Personnel Department. During the check period i.e. January, 2000 to March 2008 has annexed huge annexed both movable and immovable worth Rs. 55/62 lacs by corrupt and illegal means or by abusing his official position as public servant which are disproportionate to his known sources of income. The petitioner’s wife i.e. co-accused has already been granted the privilege by the court below by same order, the privilege was refused to the petitioner. During investigation petitioner appeared before investigating agency, but since could not satisfy them as regards the accounts alleged against him. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in view of Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the petitioner needs a Board to explain details of his income and assets which could not properly been accounted for. During investigation as - 2 - his salary and other movable or immovable properties besides income of other members of the family, through different sources were not taken into consideration, but charge-sheet after concluding of the investigation has been submitted. Learned counsel representing C.B.I. submitted that income of the petitioner and his family from all sources has been considered which includes the income tax return submitted by the petitioner during the check period. Moreover, learned counsel placing reliance upon a decision of the Apex Court in a case of HDFC Bank Limited Vs. J.J.Mannan reported in 2010 AIR SCW 366, that once charge- sheet has already been submitted in the case besides cognizance is also taken, benefit of Section 438 Cr.P.C. is not permissible to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner has given threatenings to the witnesses, who have made their statements before the Investigating Officer, but their evidence is also required in the Court also in support of such contention tampering with the evidence, order dated 25.06.2010 of a Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 8288 of 2010 has also been filed. On behalf of the petitioner two decisions of the Apex Court respectively in cases Bharat Chaudhary and Another Vs. State of Bihar and Another reported in 2003 (8) Supreme Court Cases 77 and Ravindra Saxena Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2010 (1) Supreme Court Cases 684 are placed to show that filing of charge-sheet or even framing of charge does not come as Bar in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C., if the petitioner is otherwise entitled for. - 3 - On going through the facts and circumstances of the case specially taking into account the huge unaccounted amount worth Rs. 55 lacs said to have earned in different ways by the petitioner contrary to known sources of his income besides attempts said to be taken by him. Prohibiting the witnesses from appearance in the court during trial, this Court does not find any necessity to go into question of permissibility of application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. as regard to stage of the case, but holds that it is not a fit case, where in the petitioner may be granted the privilege as prayed for. However, it is made clear in case of surrender of the petitioner before the court below his prayer for regular bail may be considered at its own merit without being prejudiced by this order. Praveen (Akhilesh Chandra,J.)