- (1.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance.
(2.) The petitioner, who is an accused for offence under Sections 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, prays for anticipatory bail on being apprehensive of being arrested in connection with Special Case No. 70 of 2010 arising out of Vigilance Case No. 53 of 2010.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that while the petitioner was posted as Member Secretary, Pollution Control Board, State of Jharkhand, Ranchi a raid was laid by the authority of income tax on 16 th February, 2010 at the residence of the petitioner and they after collecting materials prepared appraisal report and then sent it to the higher officer i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Income Tax, Central Circle, Ranchi. On such report, notices were issued calling upon him to explain and to justify that the properties were acquired from known sources of income. Meanwhile, Vigilance after having procured said appraisal report from Income Tax Authority lodged a case under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act wherein it has been alleged that the petitioner have amassed properties movable and immovable worth Rupees Sixty Four lacs which is disproportionate to known source of his income but his assessment is purely based on the appraisal report prepared by the Income Tax Authority before whom the petitioner has yet to put forth his case that the properties acquired are never disproportionate to his income and that the petitioner has always responded to the notices issued in this regard by the Income Tax Authority and even to the notices of the Vigilance and therefore it can easily be said that instant case is premature as the authority has yet to determine the income to find out as to whether it was sufficient or not to acquire the properties belonging to the petitioner and therefore the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.;