Lal Babu RajakversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39855 of 2026
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-45 Year-2026 Thana- VIGILANCE District- Patna
                 ======================================================
                 Lal Babu Rajak S/o Late Chandeshwar Rajak R/o Village- Ramsang, PS-
                 Harnaut, Distt- Nalanda

                                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    The Vigilance Department, Patna, Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Sujit Kumar, Advocate
                                          :       Mr.Gaurav Govinda, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Ms.Veena Kumari Jaiswal, APP
                 For the Vigilance         :      Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   23-06-2026                     Heard Mr. Sujit Kumar,             learned counsel for the

                   petitioner, Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the Vigilance

                   and Ms.Veena Kumari Jaiswal, learned A.P.P. for the State.

                                 2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since

                   18.04.2026 in connection with Vigilance P.S. Patna FIR No.45

                   of 2026, F.I.R. dated 16.04.2026 registered for the offence

                   punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption

                   Act, 1988.

                                 3. As per FIR, the complainant stated that the

                   petitioner instead of taking the bribe amount of Rs. 40,000/-, he

                   was asked to give it to other co-accused, namely, Rumi Kundu,

                   he just handed over the bribe amount to her which was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39855 of 2026(2) dt.23-06-2026
                                            2/4




          recovered of Rs.40,000/.- from the purse of co-accused, namely,

          Rumi Kundu by the vigilance Team.

                       4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

          submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the

          present case. It appears from the FIR that nothing has been

          recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner and as per

          allegation in the FIR, on the instance of the petitioner, the

          amount in question has been given to co-accused, namely, Rumi

          Kundu. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

          allegation as alleged in the FIR is false and fabricated and the

          petitioner has not given direction to co-accused, namely, Rumi

          Kundu to receive the amount in question on his behalf. From a

          bare perusal of the seizure list it appears that the recovery has

          been made from possession of co-accused person and petitioner

          has been made accused in the present case merely on the basis

          of ulterior motive and nothing has come during investigation

          against the petitioner to suggest the involvement of the

          petitioner in the present occurrence and the Vigilance, after

          investigation, submitted the chargesheet against the petitioner

          and the petitioner is in custody since 18.04.2026.

                       5. Learned counsel for the Vigilance and learned APP

          for the State have opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39855 of 2026(2) dt.23-06-2026
                                            3/4




          and submits that as per allegation in the FIR, the petitioner has

          demanded          the      amount         in         question   from   the

          informant/complainant and on the instance of the petitioner, co-

          accused, namely, Rumi Kundu has received the amount in

          question, apart from that, the petitioner carries one more case

          other than the present one, as mentioned in para-3 of the bail

          petition.

                       6. Considering the aforesaid facts, nothing has been

          recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner and the

          Vigilance, after investigation, submitted the chargesheet against

          the petitioner, 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

          learned court below where the case is pending in connection

          with Vigilance P.S. Patna FIR No.45 of 2026, with 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/her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient

          reason, his/her 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.39855 of 2026(2) dt.23-06-2026
                                                           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)
Nitesh/-

U          T