Vipin Sinha, J. - (1.) Counter and rejoinder affidavits filed in Court today, are taken on record. Heard Sri, U.N. Sharma, Sri Satish Trivedi, Sri Dileep Kumar, Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey and Sri Chandan Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri G.S. Chaturvedi and Sri Lokesh Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri N.B. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in case crime No. 107/13 under Sections 13(1) (e) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, police station Mutthiganj, District Allahabad with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.
(2.) I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the FIR and also the bail rejection order.
(3.) The contention as raised at the Bar by learned counsel for the applicant is that in the entire report of the vigilance, there are some lacunae to the computation of income. It is further contended that even though the taxable income has been accepted but the 'incoming income' has not been adjusted and an illustration has been given with regard to the daughter of the present applicant that even though the tax paid by her has been considered but her 'incoming income' has not been adjusted and if the income of the applicant had been correctly computed keeping in mind the gross income (incoming of all the family members) then may be a case of the prosecution with regard to the commission of offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act would have fallen. It is also contended that merely because some information with regard to the assets/properties have not been given to the Speaker of the House, the same will not make the present applicant an offender under the Prevention of Corruption Act or under the Indian Penal Code.;