High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Arjun Kumar Sinha vs The State Of Bihar Through Vig on 26 March, 2011

Patna High Court – Orders
Arjun Kumar Sinha vs The State Of Bihar Through Vig on 26 March, 2011
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                 Cr.Misc. No.2135 of 2011
                  ARJUN KUMAR SINHA, SON OF LATE CHANDRIKA PRASAD
                                             Versus
                          THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH VIG
                                           -----------

03 26.03.2011 Supplementary affidavit is filed on behalf of the

petitioner.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as

learned Special Public Prosecutor for Vigilance.

Allegedly, petitioner was caught red handed taking

five thousand rupees as bribe for sending the advisory note of the

beneficiaries of Indira Awas Yojna to the concerned bank.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner

is that the petitioner had already sent the aforesaid advisory note

to the concerned bank on 23.08.2010 and the cheque in respect of

the advisory note had already been prepared by the concerned

bank on 04.09.2010 and, therefore, the question of demanding

bribe for sending the advisory note does not arise. It is also

pointed out by him that the petitioner has been framed by

allegation maker at the instance of one Kamal Nath Singh against

whom the petitioner had already filed a complain.

On the other hand, learned Special Public

Prosecutor appearing for Vigilance points out that prior to

institution of the case, the petitioner had been caught in

connection with another case in which he was found taking bribe.

So, the conduct of the petitioner is not satisfactory. It is also

pointed out by him that the bribed amount has been recovered

from possession of the petitioner.

2

Taking into consideration the above stated facts

and circumstances of the case as well as previous conduct of the

petitioner, I do not feel it proper to release him on bail.

Accordingly, his prayer for bail in connection with Vigilance P.S.

Case No. 66 of 2010 pending in the court of learned Special

Judge, Vigilance, Muzaffarpur, stands rejected.

However, learned trial Judge is directed to

conclude the trial of the petitioner within nine months from the

date of receipt of this order and if the trial of the petitioner is not

concluded within the above stated period, the petitioner may

renew his prayer for bail. I hope and believe that vigilance should

produce the evidence in course of trial in time and also give

proper co-operation to the trial Judge so that the trial Judge may

conclude the trial of the petitioner within the above stated period.

Shahzad                              ( Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.)