Satyendra Prasad SinhaversusThe State of Bihar through Vigilance

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29643 of 2026
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-36 Year-2013 Thana- VIGILANCE District- Patna
                 ======================================================
                 Satyendra Prasad Sinha S/o Late Ram Ishwar Singh R/o Village - Arai
                 Benipur, P.S. - Daniyawa, Dist. - Patna.
                                                                       ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                     Versus
                 The State of Bihar through Vigilance Bihar
                                                                ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr.Hemant Kumar, Adv.
                                                  Mr.Gaurav Prakash, Adv.
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr.Arvind Kumar, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   13-05-2026                     Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   Additional Public Prosecutor for the State Mr. Arvind Kumar.

                                 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection

                   with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 36 of 2013 registered for the offences

                   punishable under Sections 13(2)r/w, 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of

                   Corruption Act, 1988.

                                 3. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a

                   Disproportionate Assets case and the DA was of Rs.1 crore 60 lakhs

                   and odd amount. Earlier, during the course of investigation, the

                   petitioner had approached this Court for anticipatory bail which was

                   rejected     vide    order   dated     18.04.2014      passed     in    Criminal

                   Miscellaneous No. 3840 of 2014. He asserts that the same was during

                   the course of investigation but now the investigation is complete and

                   the vigilance department has submitted the charge sheet. He asserts

                   that completion of investigation and submission of charge sheet is a

                   new development entitling him to renew his prayer for anticipatory
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29643 of 2026(3) dt.13-05-2026
                                            2/3




          bail. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan

          vs. Ravindra Saxena reported in (2010) 1 SCC 684 had allowed the

          anticipatory bail application that had been rejected for the third time

          by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court and it is held in Para 8 which

          reads as under:-

                                              “8. xxx Upon consideration of the
                                   entire issue this Court laid down certain
                                   salutary principles to be followed in exercise of
                                   the power under Section 438 CrPC by the
                                   Sessions Court and the High Court. It is clearly
                                   held that the anticipatory bail can be granted
                                   at any time so long as the applicant has not
                                   been arrested. When the application is made to
                                   the High Court or the Court of Session it must
                                   apply its own mind on the question and decide
                                   when the case is made out for granting such
                                   relief.”

                       4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

          petitioner was posted as an Execution Engineer. The case was

          instituted in 2013. The petitioner is a retired employee, he

          retired in 2016. Investigation is already complete, the petitioner

          states that he has fully co-operated with the investigation. The

          case is based upon documentary evidence and all the documents

          are in possession of the prosecution.

                       5. Learned counsel for Vigilance Mr. Arvind Kumar has

          vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner

          stating that second anticipatory bail is not maintainable and moreover

          the petitioner is needed for facing trial.

                       6. In view of the judgment rendered in the case of State
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29643 of 2026(3) dt.13-05-2026
                                                       3/3




                     of Rajasthan vs. Ravindra Saxena as well as the fact that now the

                     investigation has concluded and charge sheet has been submitted

                     which is the changed circumstances as also that the petitioner is now

                     retired and undertakes to co-operate with the trial, this Court is

                     inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

                                  7. Let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his/her

                     arrest or surrender before the Court below within a period of thirty

                     days from the date of receipt of the order, 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

                     Special Court, Vigilance, Patna in connection with Vigilance P.S.

                     Case No. 36 of 2013, subject to the conditions as laid down under

                     Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of

                     the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

                                  8. It is made clear that any observation made herein is prima

                     facie in nature and limited solely for the purpose of adjudication of the

                     present bail application. Such observations shall not be construed as an

                     expression on the merits of the case and shall not influence the trial or

                     any other proceedings in any manner.



                                                      (Ansul, J)
abhishekkr/-

U      T