Patna High Court
Pankaj RajakversusThe Vigilance Investigation Bureau through Superintendent of Police Cum officer in Charge,
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application, granting bail with conditions under Section 482(2) of the CrPC.
Summary
The petitioner, Pankaj Rajak, a Block Cooperative Extension Officer, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case under Section 13(1)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for alleged misappropriation of Rs. 10 lakh. He argued that the alleged offence occurred before his posting and that the primary accused, a former PACS President, was the real culprit, with a prior certificate case against the latter having been dropped without challenge. The Vigilance Special Public Prosecutor opposed the bail but could not refute the petitioner’s claim that the dropped certificate case did not implicate him. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties and conditions under Section 482(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, reserving the right to cancel bail if the petitioner fails to cooperate. The order directed that a copy be sent to the concerned police station.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to a public servant accused under Section 13(1)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged non‑involvement in the alleged misappropriation and the unchallenged dropping of a prior certificate case justify granting bail.
- Whether conditions under Section 482(2) of the CrPC are appropriate for the anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 482(2)
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — s. 13(1)(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Prevention of Corruption Act
- public servant
- misappropriation
- Section 13
- Section 482
- vigilance investigation
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.70583 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-10 Year-2025 Thana- VIGILANCE District- Patna
======================================================
Pankaj Rajak S/o Durga Rajak Presently posted as Block Cooperative
Extension Officer, Lakhisarai and having address At- Chandani Chauk
Sarbigha, P.S. and District- Sheikhpura
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The Vigilance Investigation Bureau through Superintendent of Police Cum
officer in Charge, Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anand Ojha, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Ashok Kumar Karna, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 15-04-2026 1. Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr.
Anand Ojha and learned Special PP for the Vigilance, Mr.
Arvind Kumar.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(2) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70583 of 2025(3) dt.15-04-2026
2/5
that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the
informant alleges that the then PACS President Ramdeo in
connivance with the Cooperative Officer did not purchase paddy
from the farmers, rather the paddy was purchased directly from
the market and the same was procured by FCI in the year 2008-
2011 by making payment in fake names and account of farmers,
thus, an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs was misappropriated.
4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits
that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it
would manifest that the thrust of the allegation of
misappropriating public money is against Ramdeo, the then
PACS President against whom it is alleged that he did not
purchase paddy from the farmers rather purchased the paddy
directly from the market for the financial year 2008-2011 and
payments were made in fake names and account of farmers,
thus, he misappropriated an amount of Rs. 10 Lakhs. It is next
submitted that the petitioner is a Cooperative Extension Officer
and he was posted on the said post on 04.08.2015, it is thus
submitted that when the occurrence took place, the petitioner
was not posted as Cooperative Extension Officer. It is further
submitted that Lakhisarai P.S. Case No. 524 of 2016 dated
21.10.2016 was earlier instituted against Ramdeo with regard to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70583 of 2025(3) dt.15-04-2026
3/5
the same occurrence and the police after investigation submitted
charge sheet and thereafter a certificate case also came to be
instituted against Ramdeo for recovering the misappropriated
money. It is next submitted that in the certificate case, it is being
alleged that this petitioner submitted a report in favour of
Ramdeo leading to dropping of certificate case. It is submitted
that if the authorities were aggrieved by the fact that Certificate
Officer had dropped the certificate case based on a manipulated
report of the petitioner in that event the authorities had remedy
of assailing the order dropping certificate case before a superior
forum, but then that was not done. It is submitted that order
dropping certificate case has attained finality, but then it is being
alleged that petitioner, in connivance with Ramdeo and others,
got the certificate case dropped. It is next submitted that since
the order of the Certificate Officer dropping the certificate case
has not been assailed by the authorities before any superior
forum that in itself demonstrates that the certificate case was
rightly dropped, but the authorities with a view to save their
own skin found a scapegoat in the petitioner and the petitioner
came to be implicated in the instant case. The learned Senior
counsel also submits that petitioner is a government servant and
will not abscond rather will cooperate in the investigation to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70583 of 2025(3) dt.15-04-2026
4/5
prove his innocence.
5. Learned Special P.P. for the Vigilance opposes the
anticipatory bail application of the petitioner, but then is not in a
position to rebut the submissions of the learned Senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the order of the
Certificate Officer dropping the certificate case has not been
assailed by any authorities before a superior forum, as such, it
cannot be alleged that it was petitioner who was instrumental in
submitting a report in favour of Ramdeo leading to dropping of
the certificate case.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
the petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or
surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be released
on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/-
(Rupees Ten 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 Vigilance P.S.
Case No. 10 of 2025 subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 482 (2) of BNSS.
7. However, it is made clear that in the event if the
Investigating Officer of the case files an application before the
learned Trial Court bringing to its notice that petitioner despite
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70583 of 2025(3) dt.15-04-2026
5/5
giving assurance to this Court is not co-operating in the
investigation, in that event the learned Trial Court shall be at
liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.
8. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned
police station through the learned Trial Court.
9. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail
application stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.