IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.16575 of 2009 K.P.SINHA @ KALIKA PRASAD SINHA SON OF LATE RAM BHAJAN SINHA, RESIDING AT ROAD NO.23, S.K. NAGAR, P.S. BUDHA COLONY, DISTRICT-PATNA. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CABINET(VIGILANCE) DEPARTMENT, INVESTIGATION BUREAU,CIRCULAR ROAD, PATNA. ----------- 2. 19.5.2009. The petitioner is in custody since 25.4.2009 in relation to Special Case No.22 of 2000 pending before Special Judge, Vigilance 1st Patna for offences under section 420 and other sections of Indian Penal Code read with various sections of Prevention of Corruption Act primarily charge on having disproportionate assets. It appears that on 27.11.1997, the Income Tax department conducted a raid in the residential premises of the petitioner pursuant to that substantial recovery of cash and other assets were made the Income Tax department initiated assessment proceedings after a lapse of eight years in terms of section 158 (B)(C) of the Income Tax Act. The outcome of those proceedings as against the petitioner, his wife, his two sons and his two daughter in-laws is pending finalization before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal pursuant to the assessment as made the department informed the State Cabinet Vigilance on the basis of the finding of the Income Tax Department instituted the present case against the petitioner and his family members being Vigilance P.S. Case No.16 of 2000 appertaining to Special Case No.22 of 2000. Once the State Vigilance took up the investigation they summoned the petitioner for interrogation. Petitioner took an objection that he being superannuated in 1995 he was no more public servant and cannot be summoned and proceeded against and thus refused to cooperate the - 2 - investigation. The department then requested the petitioner to make available his family members for interrogation at their residence itself that was also refused by the petitioner. Ultimately, charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner and his family members in the year 2007. In the meantime, all other accused persons of the family of the petitioner had appeared in court and were granted anticipatory bail by this Court except the petitioner. Petitioner’s anticipatory bail application was twice rejected by this Court and by the apex court. Notwithstanding petitioner being charge sheeted in 2007 itself and cognizance having been taken by the special court, petitioner only recently surrendered on 25.4.2009 within the time as extended by the apex court for surrendering. In view of the facts noted above and in view of the facts found at the time of Income Tax raid which I do not want necessary to discuss as it is likely to prejudice either of the parties, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. Petitioner may, however, once charges are framed renew his prayer for bail before the trial court. Mr. Giri appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an old man suffering from several serious ailments. The trial court would ensure that proper medical assistance is made available to the petitioner while in custody. With the above direction and observation, this application is dismissed. N.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)