IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.4994 of 2010 YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL, son of Late Jagarnath Prasad, R/o House No. 27, Mohalla Shivpuri, Professor Colony Road, P.S. Shastrinagar, District Patna ……… Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR THRU. VIGILANCE BIHAR, PATNA ……….. Opposite party ----------- For the Petitioner : M/s Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Adv For the Vigilance Investigation Bureau :Mr. Prashant Pratap, J.C. to Spl. P.P. Vigilance ------- 5 30.03.2010 Third supplementary affidavit has been filed today on behalf of the petitioner. Let the same be kept on record. Perused the report of the Registrar (List & Computer). It is stated therein that after rejection of the anticipatory application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. the subsequent regular bail application preferred under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is not being treated as a “Tied Up” matter and in this connection minutes dated 20.8.1998 have been referred. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that though it is a fact that it is mandatory to disclose regarding details of earlier filed anticipatory bail application and the same admittedly does not stand 2 correctly disclosed in paragraph no. 2 of this petition, rather a statement has been made that petitioner has not moved earlier, the same is a bonafide mistake committed by the petitioner/deponent/the office of the learned counsel concerned. It is further submitted that since even after dismissal of earlier anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the subsequent bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is not treated as “Tied Up” matter, no benefit could have been derived by suppressing the aforesaid fact. Thus, it is contended that it is a bonafide unintentional mistake and immediately when the matter came into the notice, a supplementary affidavit disclosing correct fact had been filed. Apology has been tendered on behalf of the petitioner/deponent. Learned counsel also tenders apology and assures that he would be very careful in future. In the above mentioned facts and circumstances the apology tendered is accepted. Now, I proceed to consider this bail application on its merit. 3 I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance Investigation Bureau. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered under Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which relates to huge disproportionate assets not known to the source of income of the petitioner. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was posted as the State Drug Controller, Bihar, and he is in service since the year 1975. In the first information report there is allegation of disproportionate assets of the valuation of Rs. 42, 92,000/-. However, after investigation, the chargesheet has been submitted and allegedly the total valuation of disproportionate assets has come up to about Rs. One crore seventy six lacs. It has been urged on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the properties acquired prior to the check period, i.e., between 1.4.1988 to 15.10.2007, have also been taken into consideration. It is submitted that the landed properties acquired by the 4 father of the petitioner have also been included for such consideration. Though, the son and daughter-in- law (who are also dental surgeons) are private professionals and income tax payee, however, their properties have also been taken for calculating the accumulated wealth of the petitioner. That apart, the properties of the married daughter have also been clubbed . It is further submitted that the wife of the petitioner is also income tax assessee since the year 1988 and her investments etc. have also wrongly been included for the purpose. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance upon certain documents as well as concerned income tax returns. Further contention is that other co-accused persons, who are wife, two married daughters, sons and daughter-in-law have already been granted anticipatory bail by a Bench of this Court. While the anticipatory bail application was pending, the petitioner was apprehended and as such the same was dismissed as having become infructuous. Learned counsel submits that during the 30 – 35 years of his service career as a Government servant, 5 apart from this case, the petitioner is having unblemished career all along. Chargesheet has been submitted and the petitioner has already remained in custody for about 6 months as he was apprehended on 5.10.2009. Further contention is that the petitioner is likely to superannuate in the year 2012. It is lastly urged that since prosecution has already submitted chargesheet, there would be no chance of tampering with any evidence. On the other hand, it has been urged on behalf of the Vigilance Investigation Bureau that huge assets amounting to Rs. 1 Crore 76 lacs stands described in the chargesheet. Learned counsel submits that it is incorrect to say on the properties acquired prior to check period have also been taken into consideration, rather the fact is that the wealth accumulated during the check period has been calculated. It is also urged that only known source of income has been taken into consideration. The sons, daughter and daughter-in-law have started filing income tax returns from the year 2005 only. However, in the facts and the circumstances 6 of the case including the fact that the petitioner has already remained in custody for about six months and chargesheet has already been submitted, the petitioner, YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL, is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Special Judge (Vigilance I), Patna, in connection with Special Case No. 77 of 2007 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 3 of 2007 , with a further condition that one of the bailors of the petitioner must be a close relative or family member of the petitioner, other than the accused persons, who shall file affidavit before the concerned court giving complete genealogy to show his or her relationship with the petitioner. Further, the petitioner shall forthwith receive the police papers without any delay and the Court concerned will ascertain that the all formalities are completed forthwith and it shall fix a date for hearing on the issue of framing of charge. Further, the petitioner shall remain present 7 on each and every date during the course of trial. If the petitioner fails to remain present on two consecutive dates without any reasonable explanation then the court concerned would be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of bail bonds of the petitioner. The petitioner, if he is holding passport, shall surrender it before the concerned court and he shall not go abroad without any permission having been granted by the concerned trial court. It is made clear that the trial court shall proceed and conduct the trial in accordance with law without being prejudiced with directions, findings or observations contained in this order. Spd/- (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)