- (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS is an application for grant of anticipatory bail as the applicant has apprehension of being taken into custody for allegedly committing offences registered under sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 471, 120-B, 109, 201, 423, 424 and 477 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 13(1) (d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 35 of 2002(Special Case No. 41/2002),which is pending in the court of learned Special Judge(Vigilance), Ranchi. On 10.12.2010 the following order was passed: "Learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi has rejected the petitioner's prayer for anticipatory bail on two major grounds. The first ground was that the petitioner as Commissioner while passing the revisional order did not advert to the point of foreign citizens whose property automatically goes to the Government of India and secondly he did not also advert to the application of urban ceiling Act, 1976. While dealing with these kinds of cases where passing of judicial or quasi- judicial order by an officer is made the subject matter of a criminal prosecution of that officer, it has to be seen not merely whether the judicial or quasi-judicial was erroneous but in addition to that it has to be shown either that the order was passed on extraneous consideration or that the order is so patently absurd or mischievous that it could not have been passed except on extraneous considerations. Taking any other view would terrify the officer, who would be tempted into indecision. Along with the supplementary affidavit a copy of the revisional order has been filed from the side of the petitioner which indicates that on the point of applicability of the urban ceiling Act, 1976 there is specific reference as to why it was not applicable or why its application could not be considered in those proceedings.
(3.) SO far as the other aspect of foreign citizenship is concerned, I have not been able to find any portion of the revisional order passed by the petitioner which deals with this aspect. But that could possibly be a ground if this aspect had been dealt with in the record of the proceedings or any order passed in the proceeding till the time the matter was being heard and decided in the revisional proceedings by the petitioner. No appellate or revisional Court is expected to deal with issues which has not been raised. Learned counsel for the respondents, Vigilance Department, has also not been able show that this point was ever raised earlier. She seeks further time of two weeks for filing a counter affidavit. The same may be filed. The case will be listed in the first week of January, 2011.;