IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.20515 of 2009 PRAVEEN KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT WITH Cr.Misc. No.20029 of 2009 DEVENDRA SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT ----------- 02 08.09.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the Vigilance Department. Both matters arise out of the same case being Special Case No. 12 of 2009 (Vigilance P.S. Case No. 18 of 2009), instituted under Sections 420, 468, 467, 471, 477A, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7, 8, 13(2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 20515 of 2009, is the Executive Engineer, Patna West Building Division, Danapur, Patna, whereas petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 20029 of 2009, is the Cashier of the same Office. The informant in the present case, is the Deputy Secretary, Vigilance Department. On the strength of complaint lodged by some of the contractors an enquiry appears to have been made by the Deputy Secretary. The Memo of enquiry is enclosed to the F.I.R. itself which provide the basis 2 of the case. Mr. Sanjay Singh, appearing in support of Cr. Misc. No. 20515 of 2009, drew attention of the Court to different documents, in order to show that non presence of the petitioner on the date of sale of B.O.Q. was for good and valid reasons. It is next contended that the sale of the B.O.Q. on 12.3.2009 was postponed under an order of the present petitioner for a justifiable reason. It is highlighted that the different documents on record would justify the stand of the petitioner, regarding his non presence at the Office on the relevant date and time as also non sale of B.O.Q. to any of the contractors including the two complaints/ contractors. It is submitted that the facts emerging in course of enquiry may at best qualify for departmental proceeding. In Cr. Misc. 20029 of 2009, Mr. Krishna Pd. Singh, Senior Counsel submits that if the B.O.Q. was not ready for sale then there was no occasion for the petitioner, who was serving as Cashier, to sale the same in favour of any person/ contractor including the two complaints. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Vigilance Department, submits that the 3 investigation is still on and as such there is likelihood of surfacing several materials justifying prosecution of the petitioners. It is next contended that the enquiry report graphically delineate the state of affairs going on in the Office of the Executive Engineer, Building Division, Danapur, Patna. Considering the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court is persuaded to extend the privilege of bail in anticipation of arrest to both the petitioners during the pendency of investigation. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the above named petitioners, in the event of arrest or surrender in the court below within four weeks from today, shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Special Judge, Vigilance-1, Patna in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 18 of 2009, Special Case No. 12 of 2009, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This Court makes it very clear that this protection is granted to the petitioners only during 4 the pendency of investigation. No sooner Charge- sheet/ Final Form is submitted the present order shall seize to exist. It is expected that the petitioners shall cooperate in the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called upon in course of investigation. P.K. (K.K. Mandal, J.)