Allowed

Anil Kumar Mishra v. The State Of Bihar Through The Department Of Vigilance, Bihar, Patna

Patna HC18 Dec 2017CR. MISC./48418/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner raising a criminal petition under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, directing surrender within six weeks and adhering to statutory conditions including cooperation with trial.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to surrender within six weeks and furnishing of bail bond with sureties.

Anil Kumar Mishra Vs The State Of Bihar Through The Department Of… — Corruption | Patna HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.48418 of 2017

¶2

Arising Out of PS.Case No. -10 Year- 2017 Thana -VIGILANCE District- PATNA ====================================================== 1. Anil Kumar Mishra, son of late Raj Kumar Mishra, resident of villageHari Nagar, P.S.- Rajnagar, District- Madhubani. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Department of Vigilance, Bihar, Patna. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Murari Narain Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, L.O.,I/c, Vigilance Mr. Amresh Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER

¶3

7/ 18-12-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Vigilance.

¶4

Petitioner apprehends his arrest in Special Case No.07 of 2017 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No.10 of 2017 instituted for the offence under Section(s) 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

¶5

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he belongs to a respectable family. He has not earned any disproportionate income.

¶6

In the written report, it is alleged that the petitioner was elected as Mukhiya in the year 2006. At that time, he had given declaration of his property at the time of filing of

¶7

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.48418 of 2017 (7) dt.18-12-2017

¶8

2/3

¶9

nomination. He was, again, elected as Mukhiya in 2011 and during that period of election he filed his nomination paper in which he had given declaration of his property and from comparison of both declarations it appears that petitioner while holding post of Mukhiya has purchased about two acres of land besides a Tavera vehicle, one Bullet motorcycle, LIC policies etc. as mentioned in the written report.

¶10

Counsel for the petitioner has filed detailed Supplementary Affidavit in which he has enclosed nomination paper filed in the year 2006 and 2011. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the nomination paper filed in the year 2006, the petitioner had declared eight acres of land and two ponds, all ancestral. In the nomination paper of 2011, he has combined area of both land and ponds and has given declaration of ten acres of land. Therefore, confusion has been created. He has not purchased any assets during the period after being elected as Mukhiya . It is further submitted that Tavera vehicle, which is shown to have been purchased, is a second hand vehicle and other investments as alleged in the written report are all made of his own fund as he belongs to a respectable family.

¶11

Counsel for the Vigilance has appeared and opposed the prayer for bail.

¶12

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.48418 of 2017 (7) dt.18-12-2017

¶13

3/3

¶14

In the facts and circumstances of the case, prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail is allowed. In the event of surrender/arrest of the petitioner, named above, within six weeks from today in connection with Special Case No.07 of 2017 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No.10 of 2017 , he shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of ` 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each

¶15

to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, Vigilance, North Bihar, Muzaffarpur, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr. P. C. with further conditions: (1) bailors should be local having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the court concerned, (2) petitioner shall cooperate in the trial and shall be present on each and every date fixed by the court and absence on two consecutive dates without proper and reasonable reason will automatically cancel bail bond of the petitioner and (3) if petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses of the case, in that case, prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

¶16

(Sanjay Priya, J)

¶17

JA/-

¶18

U T

Anil Kumar Mishra v. The State Of Bihar Through The Department Of Vigilance, Bihar, Patna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Mishra v. The State Of Bihar Through The Department Of Vigilance, Bihar, Patna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surendra Kumar @ Sonu Yadav @ Surendra Kumar @ Sonu Vs The State Of Bihar

Maneer Alam @ Maneer and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar

Dhaniklal Paswan Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Anil Kumar Jha @ Anil Jha Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Kanchan Devi and Anr. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Kamakhya Narain Singh Vs The State Of Bihar