IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.3730 of 2010 MOTILAL SINGH, Son of Late Bacchu Singh, r/o village Tarar, P.S. Daud Nagar, District Aurangabad, posted as Mines Inspector, District Mines Office, Gaya …….. Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR THRU. VIGILANCE BUREAU, PATNA ………… Opposite Party ----------- 3 29.03.2010 Heard Mr. B.P.Pandey, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Vigilance Investigation Bureau. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered under Sections 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The case was registered on a complaint being made regarding the demand of Rs. 15,000/- as illegal gratification by the petitioner from the complainant, Sanjeet Kumar Singh. Rs. 10,000/- was allegedly being demanded by the Assistant Director Mines and Rs. 5,000/- by the Mining Inspector. On the said complaint a first information report was lodged and pre-trap memorandum was prepared. Thereafter, a trap was laid and petitioner and another had been apprehended while accepting illegal gratification. - 2 - It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that police had concocted entire case with the help of the officials of the Vigilance Bureau for the reason that the petitioner was instrumental in sealing a truck loaded with minerals. The police was insisting to release the truck but the petitioner and another accused was not ready to oblige. Thus, it had been submitted, that a conspiracy was hatched up and the petitioner has been implicated falsely in the case. It is submitted that now charge sheet has been submitted and the petitioner is in government service and thee is no chance of absconding or tampering with the evidence. Learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance Investigation Bureau drew attention of this Court towards the post trap memorandum to show that some of the currency notes which had been described in pre-trap memorandum had been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and upon dipping of his fingers in the Sodium Carbonate solution as well as upon dipping of pocket of the petitioner also in solution, the same turned pink and as such it stood - 3 - corroborated without doubt that the petitioner had received the amount from the complainant. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioner, who is a government servant in the Mining Department, had been apprehended during the trap and part of the bribe money has been recovered from his possession, I am not inclined to grant bail to this petitioner for the present. However, since chargesheet had already been submitted, I deem it desirable to direct the trial court concerned to immediately hear the parties on the issue of framing of charge. Thereafter, the trial should be concluded preferably within six months from the date of framing of charges. The petitioner, if so advised, shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail, if the trial is not concluded within the period of six months from the date of framing of charge without any fault on the part of the petitioner. Spd/- (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)