BISWAMITRA MAJHI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C., for short) with a prayer to release the petitioners on anticipatory bail. Petitioners 1 and 2 are Government servants being employed as Assistant Soil Conservation Officer and Soil Conservation Section Officer respectively. They were entrusted with the work of implementing the project named Wasteland Development Programmer in Bargaon Block in the district of Sundargarh. On the allegation that some irregularities had been committed during the execution of the aforesaid project, File No. 39 of 2003 has been opened by the Sundargarh Squad of the Vigilance Department and investigation is going on.

(2.) Mr. Panda appearing for the petitioners submits that though till date neither any FIR has been drawn up nor has any search warrant been issued, since the petitioners were entrusted with execution of the aforesaid work and a vigilance enquiry is going on, there is reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioners that they may be falsely implicated in a vigilance case and arrested. Therefore, this is a fit case where the benefits of Section 438, Cr.P.C. should be extended to the petitioners. He further submits that some other officers, who had also been entrusted with the same work, had approached this Court and this Court has granted some protection to them.

(3.) Mr. D.K. Mohapatra, learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department, vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that though enquiry is in progress, till date sufficient materials have not been collected to infer commission of any cognizable offence by the petitioners for which no case has yet been registered against them. Therefore, the apprehension of the petitioners is premature. In support of the above contention, Mr. Mohapatra relies on the decisions in Gurbakash Singh Sibbia, etc. v. The State of Punjab Enforcement Officer, Ted, Bombay v. Bher Chand Tikaji Bora and another and Bhagaban Panda v. State of Orissa.