IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9800 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1 Year-2025 Thana- VIGILANCE District- Patna ======================================================

Akhilesh Kumar, S/o Late Baso Choudhary, Resident of - H. No. 484, New Mainpura, Kharanja Road, Jai Mata Di STD Danapur, P.S. - Danapur, District - Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar through S.P Vigilance, Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravi Bhardwaj, Adv.

Mr. Nilabh Ranjan, Adv.

For the Vigilance : Mr. Arvind Kumar, Spl. P.P.

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 18-02-2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. This is an application seeking quashing of the order dated 16.01.2026 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Patna in connection with Special Case No. 02 of 2025, arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 01 of 2025, registered from the offence under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, whereby the discharge application of the petitioner has been rejected.

3. The present case arises out of an FIR lodged against the petitioner for illegally accepting bribe while being authorized to be a witness on gate-pass for lifting of iron scrap materials on behalf of the South Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd (in short the SBPDCL). It is the prosecution story that a total demand of Rs. 90,000/- was made as bribe, failing which, the complainants, being purchasers, would be blacklisted and face trouble. The allegation was verified by the members of the Vigilance and they accordingly set-up a pre-trap for a particular day, to be recorded by another member. Upon being searched, the petitioner, on 07.01.2025, was found with a cash of Rs. 30,000/-, which was planned by the Vigilance as well as recorded in a form of video by one of the members. On the same day, post-trap memorandum was prepared, cash which was recovered from the right side pocket worn by the petitioner, duly verified by two independent witnesses that tallied the number mentioned in pre-trap memorandum. Thereafter, the arrest memo was prepared, in which, hands and the pocket of the pant of the petitioner were washed in different glasses from chemicals which turned pink as well as audio recorder and memory card, all were marked as Exhibits-A to G respectively.

4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the entire story of the prosecution is false and there is no material to show that there was any occasion for the petitioner to receive the amount so alleged. It has further been submitted that the prosecution story has crucial omissions regarding unexplained delay in date of filing of the complaint and the date of incident. It has been submitted that there is nothing on record which proves the capacity under which the complainants lodged the present complaint. It has next been submitted that the SBPDCL constituted a Committee, comprising five persons, authorized to oversee lifting of scrap and no occasion was found for the petitioner to have demanded bribe or even if the allegation that he was creating hurdle is accepted, then it is unexplained as to how he alone would have obstructed the part by not putting signature, as it was not mandatory. It has also been submitted that the allegation of threat of blacklisting the complainants, attributed to the petitioner, is beyond the authority of the petitioner and, hence, a super imposition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was foul play between the complainants and the authority for lifting scraps and the cost of the same to be paid, which was a threat to them, as the petitioner would have known about it, hence the allegation was fabricated against him. It has been submitted that no evidence shows refusal of signing by the petitioner on the