IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.8475 of 2008 JITENDRA JHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 8 17.09.2008 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and for the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) Petitioner is an accused in a case registered for the offence under sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner while discharging his duty as surveyor in the Oriental Insurance Company, Saharsa is alleged to have recommended for settlement of claim on the basis of a fake receipt of repair of certain articles purportedly carried out at the repairing agency namely, M/s Jai Ma Ambey Agency, which is also alleged to be a non-existent agency. Therefore, in nut-shell, the petitioner recommended for settlement of claim on the basis of fake receipt obtained from a fake agency. Petitioner recommended for settlement of the claim stating therein to the effect that he has visited the said agency, however, the same was found to be a non- existent agency. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that admittedly the petitioner did not settle the claim nor he made payment, as a matter of fact, it was the Branch 2 Manager who settled the claim & made payment, and it was open for him to make further enquiry if he was not satisfied with the recommendation of the petitioner. The further submission is that petitioner was not a beneficiary nor he received any commission for the survey done by him. It is also contended that the beneficiaries have deposited the money back. Petitioner denies that he recommended on the basis of fake receipt and without visiting the agency concerned as alleged. It is also submitted that the amount is small and in case the petitioner is not allowed bail his career may be jeopardized. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the petitioner is the main person, acting upon his recommendation believing the same to a bonafide recommendation, the Branch Manager had settled the claim and made payment to the beneficiaries whereas petitioner knowingly made recommendation on the basis of fake receipt and falsely stated in the recommendation that he visited the agency concerned where articles were alleged to have got repaired by the Assured. Considering the submissions, as noticed above, it is directed that let no coercive step be taken against the petitioner namely, Jitendra Jha in connection with Special 3 Case No. 2 of 2006 arising out of R.C.No. 2(A) of 2006 for a period of six weeks from today or surrender in the Court below whichever is the earlier. In case on surrender any application for bail is filed on behalf of the petitioner, the Court below shall consider the same on its own merit in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the present order and dispose of on the same day provided copy of the bail application is given to the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) or its counsel in the Court below at least a week in advance. This application is rejected with the above observations/ directions. Manish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)