Granting anticipatory bail in corruption cases requires a consideration of the facts and circumstances, and the court emphasized the role of the investigating authority in pursuing the matter.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner prays for anticipatory bail in a case under Sections 467, 468, 471, 409, 109, 120B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

3. The allegation against the petitioner was made by one Prem Chandra Ojha, admittedly an employee of the Civil Surgeon office whose services had been terminated on the ground of having obtained it in forged and fake manner.

4. The allegation was that the petitioner had demanded a sum of Rs. 10,000/-from the complainant so that his case can be considered and orders passed in his favour pursuant to his application dated 27.12.2004. The further allegation made was that a large number of persons whose appointments allegedly were illegal and forged were continuing in service on account of the fact that they had paid money to the petitioner. On the basis of the said complaint a preliminary enquiry was made by the Vigilance Department and thereafter FIR has been lodged under the aforesaid Sections.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the letter dated 17.10.2002 sent by the Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Government of Bihar, Patna, the petitioner as Civil Surgeon, Muzaffarpur had taken up the matter of forged, fake and illegal appointments and in course of the same he had found more than 200 such fake cases and terminated the services of such employees; one of them was the complainant of the present case, Prem Chandra Ojha. It is submitted that the said complainant alongwith a large number of such employees was aggrieved by the action of this petitioner in terminating their services and they have conspired to lodge this criminal case on the basis of false allegations. It is further submitted that much earlier in the year 2003 on 7.3.2003 the petitioner had expressed his apprehension to the superior officers and the Headquarters regarding the conspiracy that was being going on on account of action taken by this petitioner against the illegal and fake appointees including the threat to his life and that of his family members as also the threat that he would be implicated in a large number of criminal cases; some of those letters are annexed as Annexure-1 series in the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the Vigilance, on the other hand, pointed out that the petitioner was acting in a wrong manner pursuant to the directions given for detecting the cases of fake and forged appointments and was making enquiry adopting double standards. It is submitted that the petitioner was adopting soft approach towards his favourites. Various documents and records regarding such employees were not maintained by the petitioner in a proper manner and further in many cases he had terminated the services without even issuing the necessary show cause. It is further submitted that the petitioner does not have a clean antecedent and he has been implicated in serveral cases and in one of them, namely, Cr. Misc. No. 2524/2006 bail was granted to him by this Court for demanding money for issuing physical handicapped certificate from a candidate. It is further submitted that in Cr. Misc. No. 20084/2006 his anticipatory bail was rejected by this Court in respect of matter of purchase of medicines at higher rates.

7. Whatever be the truth or otherwise of the involvement or conduct of the petitioner in other matters, so far as the present case is concerned, it has been lodged mainly and initially on the basis of a complaint made by admittedly an aggrieved person whose services had been terminated by the petitioner, and also of the other persons, as alleged on a charge of demand of Rs. 10,000/- as bribe by the petitioner which does not appear to have been verified nor any amount of bribe money has changed hands. So far as the other aspects of the matter are concerned regarding the conduct of the enquiry, this Court would not like to make a