IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.6132 of 2010 RAHUL BARMAN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR 4 21.5.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel appearing on behalf of the Vigilance. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case under section 7 and 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. As per the Vigilance case a trap was conducted on the basis of an information made on 12.11.2009 by the informant Acharya Kritbodhanand, President of Gurukul Aanath Aashram with respect to the demand of bribe of Rs.76,000/- by the co-accused namely Ashok Paswan, who was the Nazir at the relevant time. It is further alleged that the informant Acharya Kritbodhanand approached this petitioner who was the Block Development Officer, Dalsingsarai for payment of a sum of Rs.3,71,330/- after adjusting the advance amount. Thereupon the Block Development Officer asked him to meet Nazir. The informant alleged that he had earlier paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the Nazir. He alleged that when he contacted the Nazir Ashok Paswan, he asked for a further sum of Rs.76,000/- stating that apart from himself, the B.D.O. would also have a share in it. Thereafter, a pre-trap memorandum was prepared and Ashok Paswan was arrested receiving a sum of Rs.76,000/- from the informant. The petitioner is Block Development Officer, Dalsingsarai. The petitioner’s case is that he has signed the cheque bearing no.774781 dated 28.10.2009 for a sum of Rs.2,80,310/- issued in favour of the complainant. - 2 - KHAN Further more the cheque was recovered from the office of the Nazir Ashok Paswan itself. There is no allegation by the informant that the petitioner ever asked for any money from him. Counsel for the Vigilance submits that in fact the B.D.O. and the Nazir were hands in gloves and as per version of the Nazir some share was to go to the petitioner. Neither the informant nor the Dy.S.P. alleged that the petitioner had any time asked for money and the cheque in question has not been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. It was the Nazir who was apprehended receiving money from the informant pursuant to the trap made by the Vigilance. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner Rahul Barman is directed to be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of his arrest/surrender within six weeks from today, in connection with Special Case No.36 of 2009 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No.112/2009 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, Vigilance, Muzaffarpur subject to the condition he would cooperate in the investigation of the case. If sanction is accorded, the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, would pass necessary order on the point of cognizance not beyond the period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the same. If cognizance is taken, he would soon thereafter commit the case after providing necessary police papers. (S.P.Singh,J) - 3 -