Fuleshwar RajakversusThe State of Bihar through Vigilance Department, Bihar, Patna.

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
             CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.67476 of 2025
      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-39 Year-2022 Thana- VIGILANCE District- Patna
======================================================
Fuleshwar Rajak Son of Madhu Rajak R/O Mohalla - Bishunpurdatt, And P.S.
- Purnea, Dist. - Purnea, PIN -854202.

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

                                       ... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s       :      Mr. Baidyanath Prasad, Advocate
                                  Mr.Rahul Kumar Shukla, Advocate
                                  Mr. Shivam Kumar, Advocate
For the Vigilance          :      Mr.Arvind Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
CAV JUDGMENT
 Date : 27-02-2026

                        Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

                       2. The present application has been filed by the

 petitioner for seeking following relief(s):

                                   That this is an application for
                    quashing of order dated 27.06.2025 passed by
                    Learned Additional Session Judge XIV, Cum
                    Special Judge (VIGILANCE), Bhagalpur in the
                    discharge petition filed by petitioner dated 06-01-
                    2025 in Special Case no 19 of 2022 arising out of
                    Vigilance P.S. Case No-39 of 2022 under section
                    7(a)/7(b)/7(c)/12 of the P.C. Act 1988.


                       3. The facts giving rise to the present application

 is that the prosecution case arises from a written complaint

 dated 08.07.2022 submitted by the informant, Shiv Kumar
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67476 of 2025 dt.27-02-2026
                                           2/10




         Verma, a licensed contractor under the Rural Works Department,

         Government of Bihar (Registration No. 2150291), before the

         Additional Superintendent of Police-cum-Station House Officer,

         Vigilance Police Station, Patna. The informant alleged that he

         had been awarded a contract under Agreement No. 23 SBD

         PMGSY-2019-2020 for construction work under the Pradhan

         Mantri Gramin Sadak Yojana (Package No. BR 01R 400). On

         04.07.2022, he visited the Divisional Office, Rural Works

         Department, Araria, for release of his final payment. It is alleged

         that the petitioner, Phuleshwar Rajak (Junior Engineer), along

         with the concerned SDO and Assistant Engineer, demanded

         commission for clearing the final bill. According to the

         complaint, Rs. 62,000/- was allegedly demanded by the SDO

         and Rs. 40,000/- by the petitioner. Being unwilling to pay the

         alleged bribe, the informant approached the Vigilance

         authorities seeking legal action.

                           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 demand the amount so alleged.

                           5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits

         that opposite party has filed a counter affidavit in which there is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67476 of 2025 dt.27-02-2026
                                           3/10




         a transcript attached, which clearly states that the petitioner had

         neither demanded Rs. 40,000 (Forty Thousand) for himself nor

         he demanded Rs. 62,000(Sixty two Thousand) for his superiors.

         It is further submitted that the Investigating officer has failed to

         produce the documents and bills. It is next submitted that from

         the post-trap proceedings, it appears highly doubtful that the

         petitioner was allegedly found sitting on a chair holding Rs.

         40,000 in his left hand, particularly when he had already been

         intercepted nearly an hour earlier, which renders the prosecution

         story ironical and improbable. The manner of interception

         suggests a mechanical implication by the police without credible

         basis. The petitioner was, in fact, discharging his official duties

         and was engaged in discussion and guidance regarding work

         matters with two contractors, namely Shri Mithlesh Jha and Shri

         Chandan Kumar Singh, at his residence. The informant

         allegedly entered the premises without being called, despite

         having no departmental work pending with the petitioner. The

         petitioner has thus been falsely implicated in the present case.

                           6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits

         that the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

         (for brevity, P.C. Act) are not attracted in the present case, as the

         petitioner never attempted to obtain any undue advantage,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67476 of 2025 dt.27-02-2026
                                            4/10




         which is evident from the recorded conversation itself, thereby

         excluding the applicability of Section 7(a); further, Section 7(b)

         is not made out since the alleged final bill, for which bribe is

         said to have been demanded as a reward, was not even in

         existence at the time of the alleged occurrence; moreover,

         Section 7(c) is also inapplicable as the petitioner, being a Junior

         Engineer, had no authority or jurisdiction over the preparation or

         sanction of the final bill or return of security deposit, the same

         being within the domain of the Executive Engineer and other

         superior officers, and his duty was confined only to preparing

         the Measurement Book and forwarding the report to his superior

         officer, namely Assistant Engineer Hemchandra Lal Karn, thus

         there    was     neither     any     inducement    nor   any improper

         performance attributable to the petitioner.

                           7. The Learned counsel for the petitioner has

         filled a supplementary affidavit which has been brought on

         record and it is contended that from reading of application by

         informant (complainant) on 08.07.2022, it speaks about demand

         of bribery for the purpose of payment of final bill of completing

         contract work done by complainant but from the document

         which is being filed with this supplementary affidavit, which

         was made available to the petitioner after 17.04.2025, clearly
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67476 of 2025 dt.27-02-2026
                                           5/10




         speaks that the final bill of the contract work had already been

         paid and received on 07.07.2022 to the complainant. It is thus

         been submitted that the petitioner had no occasion to ask for

         gratification from the informant/complainant.

                           8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits

         that the complaint was made in respect to refund of security

         money which has no concern with the petitioner rather it is

         related to power of executive engineer. It is next submitted that

         the charge sheet filed by the Investigating officer shows that

         there is no independent witnesses and the members of raiding

         party were made witnesses.

                           9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has

         submitted that from perusal of paragraph no. 57 of the case

         diary, it would appear that the post-trap memo was not prepared

         at the place of occurrence and thus it violates the provision of

         CrPC and Police Manual. The learned counsel referred to a

         judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

         B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P., (2014) 13 SCC 55, wherein the

         Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that merely possession and

         recovery of currency without proof of demand will not bring

         home the offence under Section 7 of the P.C Act. It has further

         been submitted that the same principle has been laid down in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67476 of 2025 dt.27-02-2026
                                           6/10




         case of State of Punjab v. Madan Mohan Lal Verma, (2013) 14

         SCC 153.

                           10. The learned Special Public Prosecutor

         appearing on behalf of the Vigilance, while opposing the

         application of the petitioner, has submitted that there was

         sufficient material found against him and, thereafter, the charge

         sheet has been filed, whereupon the cognizance was taken and

         subsequently, the discharge application filed by the petitioner

         was rejected.

                           11.    Referring       to    the   post   and   pre-trap

         memorandum, the learned Special Public Prosecutor has

         submitted that a raiding team was constituted and after

         following all the requirements under the law, the currency notes

         were applied with phenolphthalein powder mixed with sodium

         carbonate and, thereafter, in a well-laid trap, the petitioner was

         apprehended accepting Rs. 40,000/- as bribe. It has been

         submitted that there is no illegality in the conduct of the raid and

         the procedures as laid down was followed.

                           12. The learned Special Public Prosecutor, while

         referring to the audio scripts of the conversation between the

         accused/petitioner and other persons, submits that there is

         enough evidence to show that the conversation with regard to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67476 of 2025 dt.27-02-2026
                                           7/10




         demand and payment of money was being made and, therefore,

         at this stage, discharging the petitioner would not be proper and

         the defence of the petitioner cannot be taken into account at the

         present. It has further been submitted that the defence adopted

         by the petitioner to have never demanded or accepted any bribe

         from the complainants, in connection with the lifting of the iron

         scrap materials, is only a defence and merely because no work

         was pending with him while he was apprehended along with the

         currency notes, cannot be a ground for discharge.

                           13. The learned Spl. PP has relied upon the case

         of Padmakar Balkrishna Samant v. Abdul Rehman Antulay

         and Another; (1984) 2 SCC 183.

                           14. Having heard the learned counsel for the

         petitioner as well as the learned Special PP for the Vigilance and

         upon perusal of the respective pleadings, certain facts are worth

         noting. The petitioner was apprehended with Rs. 40,000 in his

         left hand by the Vigilance salutes after completing the

         formalities of pre-trap memo and later post-trap memorandum

         was also prepared. It is also not in dispute that the complaint

         was initially verified by the officers of the Vigilance

         Investigation Bureau on 29.07.2022 and by taking turns, the

         Junior Engineer of Rural Works Department, Araria and also the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67476 of 2025 dt.27-02-2026
                                           8/10




         then Assistant Engineer, Rural Works Department, Work

         Division were called at a pan shop and the demand of Rs.

         40,000 and Rs. 62,000 was accepted by them. It is also on

         record that there is an audio clip of the conversation of demand

         of bribe by the said two accused persons, including the

         petitioner. The preparation of pre-trap memorandum and

         subsequent preparation of post-trap memorandum after the

         recovery of G.C. notes from the petitioner is also on record.

                           15. Upon perusal of the FIR, the charge-sheet and

         the case diary, whch was submitted by the learned counsel for

         perusal, the allegations on the petitioner as per the complainant

         Shiv Kumar Verma that for payment for construction in

         Bhirbhiri Palasmani RCC Bridge under Pradhan Mantri Gram

         Sadak Yojna, the accused persons including the petitioner were

         demanding Rs. 40,000 and Rs. 62,000 as bribe and since the

         complainant did not want to pay the same, he had approached

         the Cabinet Vigilance Investigation Bureau. The record suggests

         that there is an order vide letter no. 100 dated 17.02.2023 issued

         under the signature of the Secretary, Law Department,

         Government of Bihar whereby sanction has been granted against

         the petitioner and the other accused person, though the learned

         counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that even the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67476 of 2025 dt.27-02-2026
                                           9/10




         sanction order was not proper.

                           16. In view of the facts and circumstances of the

         case, it is clear that there is prima facie evidence of demand of

         bribe and the accused petitioner was apprehended along with

         Rs. 40,000 G.C. notes and therefore, in view of the judgment

         rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

         Padmakar Balkrishna Samant v. Abdul Rehman Antulay and

         Another (supra) whereby it is a settled law now that at the time

         of framing of charge the test of prima facie case has to be

         applied. It is also a settled law that at the time of framing of

         charge, the defence provided by the accused cannot be looked

         into and no document which is not part of the record can be

         considered barring which are impeachable in nature and from

         the perusal of the same the prosecution case would be proved

         wrong. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the

         petitioner in the case of B. Jayaraj (supra) and Madan Mohan

         Lal Verma (supra) would not come to any rescue to the

         petitioner, as in both the judgments the Hon'ble Supreme Court

         has taken that fact into consideration, where only possession and

         recovery of currency notes from the accused, without any proof

         of demand, was there.

                           17. On the contrary, in the present case, not only
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67476 of 2025 dt.27-02-2026
                                                        10/10




                      the demand has been verified through the verifier, there is an

                      audio recording of the same and it need not be mentioned that

                      the correctness of such audio clip cannot be looked into at this

                      stage.

                                        18. In light of the foregoing discussion, it is

                      evident that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any

                      jurisdictional error or perversity. The inherent powers under

                      Section 482 CrPC are to be exercised sparingly and only to

                      secure justice and not to re-appreciate evidence.

                                        19. In view of the above, I do not find any

                      illegality in the order impugned and as such the present

                      application stands dismissed.




                                                (Sourendra Pandey, J)
aditya/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE                13.02.2026.
Uploading Date          27.02.2026.
Transmission Date