Fuleshwar Rajak vs The State Of Bihar Through Vigilance ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 650 Patna

Patna High Court

Fuleshwar Rajak vs The State Of Bihar Through Vigilance ... on 27 February, 2026

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
             CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.67476 of 2025
      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-39 Year-2022 Thana- VIGILANCE District- Patna
======================================================
Fuleshwar Rajak Son of Madhu Rajak R/O Mohalla - Bishunpurdatt, And P.S.
- Purnea, Dist. - Purnea, PIN -854202.

                                                                  ... ... Petitioner/s
                                   Versus
The State of Bihar through Vigilance Department, Bihar, Patna. Bihar

                                       ... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s       :      Mr. Baidyanath Prasad, Advocate
                                  Mr.Rahul Kumar Shukla, Advocate
                                  Mr. Shivam Kumar, Advocate
For the Vigilance          :      Mr.Arvind Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
CAV JUDGMENT
 Date : 27-02-2026

                        Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

                       2. The present application has been filed by the

 petitioner for seeking following relief(s):

                                   That this is an application for
                    quashing of order dated 27.06.2025 passed by
                    Learned Additional Session Judge XIV, Cum
                    Special Judge (VIGILANCE), Bhagalpur in the
                    discharge petition filed by petitioner dated 06-01-
                    2025 in Special Case no 19 of 2022 arising out of
                    Vigilance P.S. Case No-39 of 2022 under section
                    7(a)/7(b)/7(c)/12 of the P.C. Act 1988.


                       3. The facts giving rise to the present application

 is that the prosecution case arises from a written complaint

 dated 08.07.2022 submitted by the informant, Shiv Kumar
 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67476 of 2025 dt.27-02-2026
                                           2/10




         Verma, a licensed contractor under the Rural Works Department,

         Government of Bihar (Registration No. 2150291), before the

         Additional Superintendent of Police-cum-Station House Officer,

         Vigilance Police Station, Patna. The informant alleged that he

         had been awarded a contract under Agreement No. 23 SBD

         PMGSY-2019-2020 for construction work under the Pradhan

         Mantri Gramin Sadak Yojana (Package No. BR 01R 400). On

         04.07.2022

, he visited the Divisional Office, Rural Works

Department, Araria, for release of his final payment. It is alleged

that the petitioner, Phuleshwar Rajak (Junior Engineer), along

with the concerned SDO and Assistant Engineer, demanded

commission for clearing the final bill. According to the

complaint, Rs. 62,000/- was allegedly demanded by the SDO

and Rs. 40,000/- by the petitioner. Being unwilling to pay the

alleged bribe, the informant approached the Vigilance

authorities seeking legal action.

4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner

that the entire story of the prosecution is false and there is no

material to show that there was any occasion for the petitioner

to demand the amount so alleged.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits

that opposite party has filed a counter affidavit in which there is Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67476 of 2025 dt.27-02-2026

a transcript attached, which clearly states that the petitioner had

neither demanded Rs. 40,000 (Forty Thousand) for himself nor

he demanded Rs. 62,000(Sixty two Thousand) for his superiors.

It is further submitted that the Investigating officer has failed to

produce the documents and bills. It is next submitted that from

the post-trap proceedings, it appears highly doubtful that the

petitioner was allegedly found sitting on a chair holding Rs.

40,000 in his left hand, particularly when he had already been

intercepted nearly an hour earlier, which renders the prosecution

story ironical and improbable. The manner of interception

suggests a mechanical implication by the police without credible

basis. The petitioner was, in fact, discharging his official duties

and was engaged in discussion and guidance regarding work

matters with two contractors, namely Shri Mithlesh Jha and Shri

Chandan Kumar Singh, at his residence. The informant

allegedly entered the premises without being called, despite

having no departmental work pending with the petitioner. The

petitioner has thus been falsely implicated in the present case.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits

that the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

(for brevity, P.C. Act) are not attracted in the present case, as the

petitioner never attempted to obtain any undue advantage, Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67476 of 2025 dt.27-02-2026

which is evident from the recorded conversation itself, thereby

excluding the applicability of Section 7(a); further, Section 7(b)

is not made out since the alleged final bill, for which bribe is

said to have been demanded as a reward, was not even in

existence at the time of the alleged occurrence; moreover,

Section 7(c) is also inapplicable as the petitioner, being a Junior

Engineer, had no authority or jurisdiction over the preparation or

sanction of the final bill or return of security deposit, the same

being within the domain of the Executive Engineer and other

superior officers, and his duty was confined only to preparing

the Measurement Book and forwarding the report to his superior

officer, namely Assistant Engineer Hemchandra Lal Karn, thus

there was neither any inducement nor any improper

performance attributable to the petitioner.

7. The Learned counsel for the petitioner has

filled a supplementary affidavit which has been brought on

record and it is contended that from reading of application by

informant (complainant) on 08.07.2022, it speaks about demand

of bribery for the purpose of payment of final bill of completing

contract work done by complainant but from the document

which is being filed with this supplementary affidavit, which

was made available to the petitioner after 17.04.2025, clearly Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67476 of 2025 dt.27-02-2026

speaks that the final bill of the contract work had already been

paid and received on 07.07.2022 to the complainant. It is thus

been submitted that the petitioner had no occasion to ask for

gratification from the informant/complainant.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the complaint was made in respect to refund of security

money which has no concern with the petitioner rather it is

related to power of executive engineer. It is next submitted that

the charge sheet filed by the Investigating officer shows that

there is no independent witnesses and the members of raiding

party were made witnesses.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has

submitted that from perusal of paragraph no. 57 of the case

diary, it would appear that the post-trap memo was not prepared

at the place of occurrence and thus it violates the provision of

CrPC and Police Manual. The learned counsel referred to a

judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P., (2014) 13 SCC 55, wherein the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that merely possession and

recovery of currency without proof of demand will not bring

home the offence under Section 7 of the P.C Act. It has further

been submitted that the same principle has been laid down in the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67476 of 2025 dt.27-02-2026

case of State of Punjab v. Madan Mohan Lal Verma, (2013) 14

SCC 153.

10. The learned Special Public Prosecutor

appearing on behalf of the Vigilance, while opposing the

application of the petitioner, has submitted that there was

sufficient material found against him and, thereafter, the charge

sheet has been filed, whereupon the cognizance was taken and

subsequently, the discharge application filed by the petitioner

was rejected.

11. Referring to the post and pre-trap

memorandum, the learned Special Public Prosecutor has

submitted that a raiding team was constituted and after

following all the requirements under the law, the currency notes

were applied with phenolphthalein powder mixed with sodium

carbonate and, thereafter, in a well-laid trap, the petitioner was

apprehended accepting Rs. 40,000/- as bribe. It has been

submitted that there is no illegality in the conduct of the raid and

the procedures as laid down was followed.

12. The learned Special Public Prosecutor, while

referring to the audio scripts of the conversation between the

accused/petitioner and other persons, submits that there is

enough evidence to show that the conversation with regard to Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67476 of 2025 dt.27-02-2026

demand and payment of money was being made and, therefore,

at this stage, discharging the petitioner would not be proper and

the defence of the petitioner cannot be taken into account at the

present. It has further been submitted that the defence adopted

by the petitioner to have never demanded or accepted any bribe

from the complainants, in connection with the lifting of the iron

scrap materials, is only a defence and merely because no work

was pending with him while he was apprehended along with the

currency notes, cannot be a ground for discharge.

13. The learned Spl. PP has relied upon the case

of Padmakar Balkrishna Samant v. Abdul Rehman Antulay

and Another; (1984) 2 SCC 183.

14. Having heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner as well as the learned Special PP for the Vigilance and

upon perusal of the respective pleadings, certain facts are worth

noting. The petitioner was apprehended with Rs. 40,000 in his

left hand by the Vigilance salutes after completing the

formalities of pre-trap memo and later post-trap memorandum

was also prepared. It is also not in dispute that the complaint

was initially verified by the officers of the Vigilance

Investigation Bureau on 29.07.2022 and by taking turns, the

Junior Engineer of Rural Works Department, Araria and also the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67476 of 2025 dt.27-02-2026

then Assistant Engineer, Rural Works Department, Work

Division were called at a pan shop and the demand of Rs.

40,000 and Rs. 62,000 was accepted by them. It is also on

record that there is an audio clip of the conversation of demand

of bribe by the said two accused persons, including the

petitioner. The preparation of pre-trap memorandum and

subsequent preparation of post-trap memorandum after the

recovery of G.C. notes from the petitioner is also on record.

15. Upon perusal of the FIR, the charge-sheet and

the case diary, whch was submitted by the learned counsel for

perusal, the allegations on the petitioner as per the complainant

Shiv Kumar Verma that for payment for construction in

Bhirbhiri Palasmani RCC Bridge under Pradhan Mantri Gram

Sadak Yojna, the accused persons including the petitioner were

demanding Rs. 40,000 and Rs. 62,000 as bribe and since the

complainant did not want to pay the same, he had approached

the Cabinet Vigilance Investigation Bureau. The record suggests

that there is an order vide letter no. 100 dated 17.02.2023 issued

under the signature of the Secretary, Law Department,

Government of Bihar whereby sanction has been granted against

the petitioner and the other accused person, though the learned

counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that even the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67476 of 2025 dt.27-02-2026

sanction order was not proper.

16. In view of the facts and circumstances of the

case, it is clear that there is prima facie evidence of demand of

bribe and the accused petitioner was apprehended along with

Rs. 40,000 G.C. notes and therefore, in view of the judgment

rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Padmakar Balkrishna Samant v. Abdul Rehman Antulay and

Another (supra) whereby it is a settled law now that at the time

of framing of charge the test of prima facie case has to be

applied. It is also a settled law that at the time of framing of

charge, the defence provided by the accused cannot be looked

into and no document which is not part of the record can be

considered barring which are impeachable in nature and from

the perusal of the same the prosecution case would be proved

wrong. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the

petitioner in the case of B. Jayaraj (supra) and Madan Mohan

Lal Verma (supra) would not come to any rescue to the

petitioner, as in both the judgments the Hon'ble Supreme Court

has taken that fact into consideration, where only possession and

recovery of currency notes from the accused, without any proof

of demand, was there.

17. On the contrary, in the present case, not only Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67476 of 2025 dt.27-02-2026

the demand has been verified through the verifier, there is an

audio recording of the same and it need not be mentioned that

the correctness of such audio clip cannot be looked into at this

stage.

18. In light of the foregoing discussion, it is

evident that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any

jurisdictional error or perversity. The inherent powers under

Section 482 CrPC are to be exercised sparingly and only to

secure justice and not to re-appreciate evidence.

19. In view of the above, I do not find any

illegality in the order impugned and as such the present

application stands dismissed.

(Sourendra Pandey, J) aditya/-

AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE                13.02.2026.
Uploading Date          27.02.2026.
Transmission Date