Ramesh Chandra PrasadversusThe State of Bihar through Vigilance

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38081 of 2026
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-135 Year-2016 Thana- VIGILANCE District- Patna
                 ======================================================
                 Ramesh Chandra Prasad S/o- Late Shetal Prasad R/v- Chandpur Bela Ps-
                 Jakanpur Dist- Patna

                                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                    Versus
                 The State of Bihar through Vigilance Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr.Hemant Kumar- Advocate
                 For the Vigilance        :        Mr.Arvind Kumar- Special P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   23-06-2026                   1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

                   learned Special P.P. for the State.

                                 2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his

                   arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under

                   Sections 13(2), r/w 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act 1988.

                                 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   the petitioner has antecedent of one case and the informant

                   alleges that the petitioner was posted as District Welfare Officer,

                   Begusarai and was caught taking bribe of Rs.40,000/- from Jai

                   Prakash Chaudhary for which Vigilance P.S. Case No.09 of

                   2016 was instituted on 28.01.2016 and petitioner was arrested,

                   thereafter his flat was searched from where an amount of

                   Rs.40,700/- was recovered along with detail of land and other

                   instruments in the name of his wife and family member, thus
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38081 of 2026(2) dt.23-06-2026
                                            2/4




          alleges that petitioner from the date of his appointment i.e.

          17.11.1989 till 28.01.2016 had amassed disproportionate assets

          to the tune of Rs.69,91,500/- beyond his known source of

          income.

                       4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

          the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by

          the informant. It is next submitted that in the instant FIR, it is

          alleged that the petitioner was arrested taking bribe for which

          Vigilance P.S. Case No. 09 of 2016 was instituted and after

          institution of the said case, the petitioner was taken in custody

          and thereafter his flat was raided from where cash and other

          articles were recovered for which the instant FIR has been

          instituted. It is further submitted that petitioner has been granted

          the privilege of regular bail in Vigilance P.S. Case No. 09 of

          2016 and in the instant case, the petitioner has cooperated in the

          investigation and the vigilance never felt the need of arresting

          the petitioner, but then charge-sheet came to be submitted based

          on which cognizance was taken and thereafter summons were

          issued, but then petitioner never received any summon

          thereafter bailable and non-bailable warrant of arrest were

          issued and after issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest, the

          police came knocking the door of the petitioner when he came
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38081 of 2026(2) dt.23-06-2026
                                            3/4




          to know that charge-sheet has been submitted and cognizance

          has been taken. It is also submitted that since the vigilance never

          felt the need of arresting the petitioner during the course of

          investigation as petitioner cooperated in the investigation, as

          such, no useful purpose would be served by sending the

          petitioner to jail when he has not received the summon after

          cognizance. It is also submitted that if the privilege of

          anticipatory bail is granted, the petitioner will not abscond

          rather will cooperate in the trial to prove his innocence.

                       5. The learned Special P.P. does not dispute the

          submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

          petitioner that vigilance during the course of investigation did

          not arrest the petitioner and petitioner cooperated in the

          investigation.

                       6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,

          the petitioner, above-named, in the event of his arrest or

          surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six

          weeks, is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail-

          bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five

          Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the

          satisfaction of the learned Trial Court where the case is

          pending/successor Court in connection with Special Case No.
               Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38081 of 2026(2) dt.23-06-2026
                                                           4/4




                         73 of 2016 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 135 of 2016,

                         subject to the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of the

                         B.N.S.S.

                                      7. The application stands allowed.

                                      8. However, it is made clear that if the learned trial

                         court comes to a conclusion that petitioner after his release on

                         anticipatory bail is trying the delay the framing of charge or

                         after framing of charge is trying to delay the trial in any manner

                         in both the conditions, the learned trial court shall be at liberty

                         to cancel the anticipatory bail bonds of the petitioner.



                                                   (Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-

U          T