Allowed

Burgula Papa Rao @ Prasanna Burgula Papa Rao v. the State through C.B.I

Patna HC26 Sept 2022CR. MISC./5361/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge granted bail after framing of charges to the petitioner accused of corruption and criminal conspiracy. The court considered clean antecedents, absence of FIR naming, and similar fate of co-accused.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail after framing of charges by furnishing a bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties and complying with specified conditions.

Burgula Papa Rao @ Prasanna Burgula Papa Rao Vs the State through… — Corruption | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5361 of 2022

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-4 Year-2021 Thana- C.B.I CASE District- Patna

¶3

======================================================

¶4

BURGULA PAPA RAO @ PRASANNA BURGULA PAPA RAO Son of Parkasham Resident of House No. 32, Vankat Eshwara Colony, Shanti Nagar, Uppal, Police Station - Uppal, District - Medchal- Makajgiri, Hyderbad.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

THE STATE THROUGH C.B.I Bihar

¶8

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Makardhwaj Upadhyay, Adv. For the CBI : Mrs.Nivedita Nirvikar, Sr. Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER

¶10

3 26-09-2022

¶11

The present matter has been listed under the heading “To Be Mentioned.”

¶12

Let the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, be removed within a period of four weeks from today.

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the C.B.I.

¶14

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Special Case No. 01/ 2021, R.C. No. 04A/ 2021, CIS No. 10 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 7(A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120B of the IPC.

¶15

As per prosecution case, the C.B.I. received information from reliable sources that some public servants

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5361 of 2022(3) dt.26-09-2022 2/5

¶17

entered into a criminal conspiracy with others for showing undue favour to some of the candidates appearing for the oral examination of Computer Based Examinations for Manager’s Certificate of Competency (Restricted & Unrestricted), under the Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961 and the Coal Mines Regulations, 2017 (1^st Class and 2^nd Class Manager’s Certificates) conducted by Directorate General of Mines Safety (DGMS) which is the Regulatory Agency under the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, by manipulating and influencing the members of interview board for qualifying such candidates in lieu of huge amount of illegal gratification.

¶18

The accusation against the petitioner is that he acted as middleman between co-accused Triloki Nath Singh and Manoj Kumar Sinha and he used to refer the prospective candidates of the said examination to co-accused Triloki Nath Singh who further forwarded the name of those candidates to co-accused Arvind Kumar for selection.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is not named in the FIR. Petitioner is in custody since 14.12.2021 and bears no criminal antecedent. Charge sheet has been submitted in this case and there is no likelihood of

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5361 of 2022(3) dt.26-09-2022 3/5

¶21

tampering with the prosecution evidence. Learned counsel further submits that co-accused Manoj Kumar Sinha has been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide Cr. Misc. No. 6411 of 2022. Learned counsel further submits that co-accused Kailash Mandal, against whom recovery has been made, has already been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide Cr. Misc. No. 62515 of 2021 and the case of present petitioner stands more or less on similar footing.

¶22

Learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I. has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that there is sufficient evidence including CDR, recorded conversations, bank accounts, whatsapp chats etc. against the petitioner which show involvement of the petitioner in the alleged crime. She also refers paragraph nos. 16.14, 16.15, 16.24, 16.26, 16.27, 16.28, 16.29, 16.30 etc. of the chargesheet as well as supplementary charge sheet to show the involvement of the petitioner alongwith other co-accused in the alleged crime.

¶23

From perusal of the report of Exclusive Special Court, CBI Court No. III, Patna, it is evident that presently the case is pending for framing of charges against all the accused persons.

¶24

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, period of custody, keeping in view clean antecedent of

¶25

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5361 of 2022(3) dt.26-09-2022 4/5

¶26

petitioner, charge sheet has been submitted in this case and there is no likelihood of tampering with the prosecution evidence, similarly situated co-accused persons have already been granted bail, argument advanced on behalf of both sides and also taking into consideration the material available on record, let the petitioner above named be released on bail after framing of charge on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, C.B.I.-III, Patna in connection with Special Case No. 01/ 2021, R.C. No. 04A/ 2021, CIS No. 10 of 2021, subject to following conditions:-

¶27

(i) One of the bailors shall be wife of the petitioner.

¶28

(ii) Petitioner shall remain present before the trial court on each and every date without fail, failing which the trial court shall cancel the bail bond of the petitioner.

¶29

(iii) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

¶30

(iv) Petitioner shall furnish mobile number at the time of furnishing bail bond and the said mobile number shall continue in operating condition till disposal of the case.

¶31

(v) If the petitioner possesses the Indian Passport, he

¶32

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5361 of 2022(3) dt.26-09-2022 5/5

¶33

will surrender the same at the time of furnishing bail bond.

¶34

(vi) However, if petitioner violates any of the

¶35

conditions as enumerated above, the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail bond of the petitioner.

¶36

(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)

¶37

shahzad/-

¶38

U T

Burgula Papa Rao @ Prasanna Burgula Papa Rao v. the State through C.B.I

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Burgula Papa Rao @ Prasanna Burgula Papa Rao v. the State through C.B.I

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

Chitranjan @ Nanhe Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Ankit Kumar Vs the State of Bihar

Navneet Kumar Vs the State of Bihar

Manish Eknath Murkute Vs the Central Bureau of Investigation through the Superintendent of Police, Cbi/Ac-I, New Delhi

Hari Prasad Soni Vs the Union of India through C.B.I. Patna

Mani Sahni Vs The State of Bihar