Patna High Court
Shishir RoyversusThe State of Bihar through the Vigilance Investigation Bureau Patna
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
Bail was granted to the petitioner with specified conditions.
Summary
Shishir Roy, an accountant with the Local Engineering Division, Khagaria, was arrested on 10 January 2026 for allegedly demanding a bribe of Rs.20,000 to facilitate the payment of a contractor's bill, an offence punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution alleged that Rs.18,000 was recovered from Roy and a subsequent raid yielded Rs.3,56,000, leading to a charge sheet in Vigilance P.S. Case No. 04 of 2026. Roy's counsel argued that he has a clean antecedent and that the charge sheet alone does not justify continued detention, seeking bail. The Special Public Prosecutor opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the corruption charge. The court, noting Roy's clean record and the principle of bail for non-violent offences, granted bail on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and imposed conditions regarding trial cooperation, non‑tampering with evidence, and verification of antecedents. The bail order was directed to be implemented by the District and Additional Sessions Judge‑Special Judge (Vigilance) in Bhagalpur.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to an accused under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act considering the nature of the alleged offence.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent and the circumstances of the case justify the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Prevention of Corruption Act — s. 7(a)
Subjects
- bail
- Prevention of Corruption Act
- Section 7(a)
- vigilance
- bribery
- clean antecedent
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24179 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-4 Year-2026 Thana- VIGILANCE District- Patna
======================================================
Shishir Roy S/o Radha Kant Roy R/o Village - Krishnanagar, P.S - Saharsa,
District - Saharsa Presently posted as Accountant, Local Engineering
Division, Khagaria
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar through the Vigilance Investigation Bureau Patna Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate
For the Vigilance : Mr. Arvind Kumar. Spl.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 15-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
10.01.2026 in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 04 of
2026 for the offence punishable under Section 7(a) of
Prevention of Corruption Act.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that one Sanjay
Kumar, who is grade IV contractor having registration in the
name and style of Kalyani Construction. He was awarded a
contract from Local Engineering Works Division, Khagaria and
entered into an agreement vide Agreement No. 16F2/2024-2025
and allotment amount of the same was Rs.10,50,000/-. He
executed the work and Local Engineering Works Division also
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24179 of 2026(2) dt.15-04-2026
2/4
gave transfer certificate on 18.06.2025. Then he met the
accountant of the division on 03.01.2026 in his office and asked
about payment of his bill as he has completed the work. But the
payment has not been made on which Shishir Roy, accused-
petitioner told that one challan of sand which he has submitted
in bill is in photocopy. Even if it is genuine of photocopy it
cannot be passed and if he wants to get his bill passed on that
photocopy, he has to first pay his commission then he has asked
how much he has to pay then in clear words twenty thousand
rupees was demanded for passing the bill. Since he does not
want to give the bribe he lodged the complaint before Vigilance
Investigation Bureau, Patna.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits
that petitioner has clean antecedent. Learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioner further submits that as per the allegation as alleged
in the FIR, the petitioner has demanded Rs.20,000/- from the
informant for clearing the bill of the informant and Rs.18,000/-
was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. After that,
raid was conducted in the house of the petitioner where
altogether Rs.3,56,000/- was also recovered from the house of
the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner next
submits that although recovery has been made in pre-trap and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24179 of 2026(2) dt.15-04-2026
3/4
post-trap memorandum but the petitioner has falsely been
implicated in the present case and police after investigation
submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner and petitioner
is in custody since 10.01.2026 and since the charge-sheet has
been submitted against the petitioner so there is no need to keep
the petitioner in custody.
5. The learned Spl.P.P. for the Vigilance has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent, let the
petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail
bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned District and
Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum-Special Judge (Vigilance)
Bhagalpur in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 04 of
2026, subject to the following conditions:-
i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and
on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24179 of 2026(2) dt.15-04-2026
4/4
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to
move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Gaurav Sinha/-
U T
Checking your session…