Rakesh Ranjan Prasad, J. - (1.) BOTH the cases since arising out of the same impugned order, it were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. The facts of the case giving rise to Cr.M.P. No. 1643 of 2013 are that the complainant Sunil Kumar Choudhary was awarded with a contract for installation of 73 Tube Wells. Consequent upon this the complainant submitted application along with requisite documents in the office of the Executive Engineer, Bipin Kumar Sinha for execution of an agreement. That application was returned to the complainant, who later on came to know that the work allotted has been cancelled. Thereupon when the complainant contacted to the petitioner, the petitioner a Superintending Engineer demanded bribe. The matter was informed to the S.P. Vigilance by the complainant. On receiving such complaint, a trap team was constituted and a raid was conducted at the house of the petitioner where the petitioner in that course was caught raid handed with bribe -money of Rs. 2,70,000/ -. On search being effected of the house, an additional amount of Rs. 4.90,000/ - was found. Thereupon an FIR was lodged on 2.1.2013 which was registered as Vigilance P.S. case no. 2 of 2013 under Section 7/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
(2.) THE facts of the case giving rise to Cr.M.P. No. 1594 of 2013 are that the complainant Sunil Kumar Choudhary when was awarded work of installation of 175 Drill Tube Wells, necessary applications along with requisite documents were submitted for execution of the agreement but for that, bribe of Rs. 1,00,000/ - was demanded. The matter was informed to the S.P. Vigilance, who laid a trap during which the petitioner (Executive Engineer) was caught raid handed, while receiving the bribe amount. On such allegation, a case was registered as Vigilance P.S. case no. 1 of 2013 under Sections 7/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In both the cases, the petitioners were remanded to the jail custody, on being produced before the Magistrate on 5.1.2013. The Vigilance having completed investigation submitted charge sheet on 4.3.2013 well within the stipulated period of 60 days. However, the prosecution failed to have order sanctioning prosecution. In that event, the court finding himself handicapped in taking cognizance of the offence did grant bail to the petitioners, vide order dated 16.3.2013.
(3.) THEREUPON an application was filed on behalf of the Vigilance in both the cases for cancelling the bail granted to the petitioners stating therein that the charge sheet though was submitted in time, but it was not accompanied with the order sanctioning prosecution and hence, the court by assuming that he is handicapped in taking cognizance granted bail, though in view of the decision rendered in a case of Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain vs. State of Maharashtra and another : [(2013) 3 SCC 77] the petitioners were not entitled to have bail on submission of the charge sheet within the time stipulated under the Code notwithstanding the fact that it was not accompanied with the order sanctioning prosecution and thereby the prayer was made to cancel the bail at both the petitioners.;