IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.320 of 2010 Bishwanath Prasad Choudhary (Retd. I.A.S.) son of Late Ramashish Choudhary, resident of 4H/75, Bahadurpur Housing Colony, P.O. Lohianagar, P.S. Agamkuan, District- Patna. ………………………………Petitioner. Versus The State of Bihar through the Cabinet (Vigilance) Department, Investigation Bureau, Circular Road, Patna……Opposite Party. ----------- 5. 12. 04. 2010. Heard Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Prashant Pratap, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Vigilance. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Special Case No. 54/2009 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 76 of 2009 registered under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is a retired person having superannuated from service as far back as 31. 01. 1995. The present case was lodged after more than fourteen years from the date of his retirement. According to the prosecution case, the petitioner entered into service 12. 12. 1960 and till the year 1989/90 his total salary comes to Rs. 4,83,775.54. Total income of the petitioner during the entire period including the salary comes to Rs. 7,58,658.54. According to the prosecution case after deducting all the expenses petitioner could have saved only Rs. 2,85,888.18. When the assets of the petitioner was calculated, it was found to be worth Rs. 5,88,860.00 and therefore, it is alleged that petitioner was having disproportionate assets of Rs. 2,85,972.00. 2 It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in fact agricultural income of the petitioner has not been taken into consideration and there appears to be miscalculation about saving of the income of the petitioner. It is also highlighted that petitioner is an old man aged about 74 years and he has partially lost his eye sight and is also suffering from various other ailments. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Vigilance have opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail tooth and nail and submits that in view of allegation of disproportionate assets worth Rs. 2,85,972.00, he may not be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail. Be that as it may, in view of the fact that petitioner is an old man aged about 74 years ,suffering from various ailments and the present case was lodged after a delay of fourteen years from the date of retirement of the petitioner, in the event of arrest/surrender within a period of four weeks from today, he shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, Vigilance-1, Patna, in connection with Special Case no. 54/2009 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case no. 76 of 2009, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of Cr.P.C. and subject to further conditions; (a) That one of the bailors must be Government servant or close family member of the petitioner, who will file an affidavit in the court below showing his/her relationship 3 with the petitioner. (c) The petitioner shall make regular pairvi in the court below in the present case either by appearing himself in person or through representation by his lawyer on each and every dates, and if on two consecutive dates petitioner fails to make pairvi, then the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bond of the petitioner. Non-compliance of the aforesaid conditions shall be construed as misuse of privilege of anticipatory bail and consequences shall follow. m.p. ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)