IMPORTANT POINT
Anticipatory bail granted by a higher court remains in effect until the trial concludes, and lower courts must adhere to such orders to maintain judicial discipline.

JUDGMENT

V. Narasingh, J.

By filing this Petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the accused-Petitioners are assailing the order dated 20.03.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhawanipatna in G.R. Case No.21 of 2021 (V) and also seeking a direction from this Court to give effect to the order passed by this Court dated 24.01.2022 in ABLAPL Nos.16694 and 16666 of 2021.

1. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the Opposite Party.

2. The brief facts germane for just adjudication is stated hereunder;

'.......that on 15.12.2021, F.I.R. vide, Annexure-1 was registered against the petitioners and three others alleging commission of offences U/S 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) of the P.C. Act., 1988 and Sections 409/468/471/477-A/120-B of the I.P.C. vide Koraput Vigilance P.S. Case No.27 of 2021 which was registered as G.R. Case No.21 of 2021(v) in the Court of the Special Judge Vigilance, Bhawanipatna. The allegation against the present petitioners is that they being public servants committed criminal conspiracy with some subordinate officials of their department in misappropriating a sum of Rs.23,63,940/- causing wrongful loss to the Government and were also wrongful loss to the Government and were also responsible for forging some official documents. The specific allegation was that funds were allotted for plantation of seedlings and on verification by the Vigilance it was allegedly found that the plantation was not properly done as required number of plants were not there at the spot.

xxx xxx xxx'

3. Apprehending arrest in connection with the aforementioned vigilance case, the Petitioners filed ABLAPL No.16694 and 16666 of 2021 respectively and were allowed by this Court by order dated 24.01.2022. The operative part of the order reads as under;

'............accordingly, this Court directs that in the event of arrest of the petitioner in connection with the aforesaid case, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(rupees ten thousand) with two sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer with further conditions that he shall appear before the Investigating Office on receipt of the written notice and he shall cooperate with the investigation and shall further appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required and he shall not try to tamper with the evidence in any manner. If the petitioner fails to appear on receipt of written notice or does not cooperate with the investigation, the prosecuting agency is at liberty to seek appropriate remedy for cancellation of the anticipatory bail order of the petitioner.

xxx xxx xxx'

4. It is apposite to note that in the case at hand charge sheet was submitted against the Petitioners and other accused persons for offences U/s-13(2) r/w 13(1)(C) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and U/s-409/468/471/477(A)/120B of the IPC and Petitioners were shown as 'not arrested' in the said charge sheet.

5. After submission of such charge sheet at Annexure-2, learned Court took cognizance of the offence and issued summons pursuant to which the present Petitioners appeared on 20.03.2023 and filed applications for bail.

6. The learned Special Judge rejected the Petitioners prayer for bail and by the impugned order dated 20.03.2023 at Annexure-5 remanded the accused Petitioners to custody.

7. Learned Senior counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Mund submits that the impugned order is ex-facie illegal. And, in doing so the learned Special Judge lost sight of sub-section 3 of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. whereby, the learned Court was required to issue a bailable warrant in the face of the order passed by this Court under Section 438(1) of the Cr.P.C.

8. It is his further submission that the finding of the learned Court that the Petitioners did not cooperate in de-hors the record. It is also stated by the learned senior counsel that since the Petitioners were remanded to custody and this Court has granted them interim bail, there is no necess