SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 3126

PATNA HIGH COURT
CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA, J
Rakesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Bihar Through Vigilance, Patna Bihar – Respondent
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.67683 of 2025 | PS. Case No.-52 Year-2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Ajay Kr. Thakur, Mrs. Vaishnavi Singh, Mr. Ritwik Thakur, Mr. Purushottam Kumar
For the Respondents: Mr. Arvind Kumar, APP

The court grants bail considering the absence of supporting allegations by the complainant and the petitioner's clean record.

Headnote:The petitioner sought bail in Vigilance P.S. Case No. 52 of 2025 for accepting a bribe under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner contended that he was wrongfully accused and had a clean record. The court, considering the allegations and the lengthy custody without tampering risk, granted bail. Issues framed include the credibility of the bribery allegations and the legality of the arrest process. The court emphasized the necessity of cooperation during trial while leveraging prior clean conduct to support bail. The final order states the petitioner is released on bail with conditions to present in court until trial concludes.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL ORDER

5 02-12-2025 Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 52 of 2025 registered for the offences under Sections 7 (a)(c) and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act .

3. The petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and is in custody since 12.07.2025.

4. The allegation against the petitioner is to accept bribe of Rs. 20,000/- being Circle Officer at Patarghat in connection with mutation of property the description of which is available with FIR.

5. Mr. Ajay Kr. Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that alleged trap was not in terms of established principle of law. It is also submitted that voice record qua alleged bribe is mainly with computer operator and not with this petitioner. Arguing further, it is submitted that application for mutation was made by Dropadi Devi, who never raised any allegation against petitioner as to demand bribe. It is submitted that vigilance team forcibly put chemical powder on the hands of petitioner, which may be easily gathered by CCTV footage installed over there. It is pointed out that petitioner was never found indulged in any such type of activity in last three years of his service. While concluding the argument it is submitted that, petitioner is a man of clean antecedent and moreover, investigation of this case has already completed, as such, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence.

6. Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the Vigilance, while opposing the prayer for bail submitted that allegation as to receive bribe is specific against this petitioner. It is pointed out that no illegality was committed by Vigilance Deptt. during the trap. However, he conceded that no complaint was ever raised by applicant of mutation petition namely Dropadi Devi.

7. In view of aforesaid factual submission and by taking note of fact as allegation prima-facie not appears to be raised by the applicant of mutation petition, coupled with the fact as petitioner remains in custody since 12.07.2025, being a man of clean antecednet, accordingly above named petitioner, is directed to be released on bail in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 52 of 2025 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum-Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhagalpur/concerned court, subject to the conditions as mentioned under Section 480(3) of the B.N.S.S.

with further condition:-

(i) Accused/Petitioner shall cooperate in the trial and shall be physically present on each and every date before the Trial Court till conclusion of the trial and exemption from physical appearance be allowed by the Trial Court, only on medical ground of the petitioner duly supported by the documents.

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top