IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.18350 of 2009 CHANDRA KISHORE SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT. with Cr.Misc. No.30747 of 2009 NAND KISHORE SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH .A.D.G.P VIGILANCE. ----------- 2 07.09.2009 Both matters arise out of the same occurrence giving rise to a case which was taken over by the Vigilance vide Vigilance Case no. 118/2007 (Special case no. 41 of 2007) in relation to a seizure having been effected in respect of 38 quintals of wheat, from a Tata-407. Initially a case under Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act was lodged by Ram Kumar Singh. That gave rise to Gaighat P.S. case no. 7 of 2004. The matter was being investigated. In the meantime, aforesaid Ram Kumar Singh filed a complaint case (Complaint case no. 14/2007) which was subsequently made over to the Vigilance. In the first case, (Gaighat P.S. case no. 7/2007) investigation appears to have been made. Learned counsel refers to Annexure-2 of Cr. Misc. N. 18350 of 2009 which is the supervision note of the Superintendent of Police. They also referred to Annexure-5 which is inquiry report submitted to Investigating authority by the District Supply Officer. These findings absolve the petitioners of the charge. The authorities have taken note of the fact that the informant and complainant are inimical as Ram Kumar Singh lost 2 to the petitioner of Cr. Misc. NO. 18350 of 2009. These reports also take into account the fact that the cousin brother of the aforesaid Ram Kumar Singh was removed from the P.D.S. Dealership at the instance of the Mukhiya (petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 18350 of 2009). It appears that the matter was once again inquired into/investigated by the Vigilance authorities. They somehow or the other found that allegations prima facie true. Learned counsel for the vigilance submits that looking to the materials collected by the Vigilance Department, the District Magistrate has also accorded sanction for prosecution of the petitioners. It is contended that one of the co-accuseds of the present case, having regard to the facts appearing on record, has been privileged with anticipatory bail by this court under order dated 2.7.2008 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 14705 of 2008. The order handed in by learned counsel for the petitioners is placed on record and marked as “X”. Be that as it may, having regard to the fact that at least one investigating agency found the allegations not true against them, I am persuaded to admit the petitioners to the privilege of anticipatory bail. In the event of arrest or surrender in the court below within a period of four weeks, let petitioners above named be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the 3 satisfaction of learned Special Judge (Vigilance) North Bihar, Muzaffarpur in connection with Special Case no. 41 of 2007 (arising out of Vigilance case no. 118/2007) subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )