Judgment 1. The petitioner, who is a practicing Advocate is being prosecuted for offences under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471A, 193 and 201/120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1) (D) of the P.C. Act, relating to Vigilance P.S. Case No. 2 of 2004, pending before the Special Judge, Vigilance, Patna under Special Case No. 4 of 2004. 2. Sequence of events giving rise to the present case, stated in brief, is that coaccused Ali Imam, who was an employee in the Education Department had filed C.W.J.C. No. 1532 of 1999 through the petitioner Advocate praying for a direction for quashing his removal from service and allowing him to join the post. That writ petition was dismissed by the Court with liberty to said Ali Imam to file a representation before the Director of Education. It is said that Ali Imam filed his representation before the Director, but no relief was granted to him. Then he (Ali Imam) filed M.J.C No. 4092 of 1999 before this Court through the same Advocate, i.e., the petitioner, complaining that the direction of this Court, as passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1532 of 1999 was not being carried out by the Director. Thereafter Ali Imam again filed one writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 10694 of 2002 before this Court, but in that writ petition, he suppressed the fact that his earlier writ petition, i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 1532 of 1999, was dismissed. During the pendency of that writ petition, i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 10694 of 2002, it also came to light that the petitioner Ali Imam had earlier filed three writ petitions, namely, C.W.J.C. No. 1963 of 1994, C.W.J.C. No. 5992 of 1996 and C.W.J.C. No. 1532 of 1999 regarding the same matter, but the filing of these three writ petitions were suppressed in the latest writ petition, i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 10694 of 2002 which had been filed by Ali Imam through the petitioner Advocate. Due to suppression of facts in the latest writ petition. i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 10694 of 2002, vide this Courts order dated 31.10.2002 (Annexure-1), the Director General of Investigation Bureau (Cabinet) Vigilance Department was directed to make enquiry into the conduct of the concerned Officer as well as the Advocate and submit a report to this Court within four months. Due to suppression of facts in the latest writ petition. i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 10694 of 2002, vide this Courts order dated 31.10.2002 (Annexure-1), the Director General of Investigation Bureau (Cabinet) Vigilance Department was directed to make enquiry into the conduct of the concerned Officer as well as the Advocate and submit a report to this Court within four months. In compliance to that order of this Court, the report (Annexure-2) dated 19.1.2004 was submitted and on the basis of that report stating about the collusion of the petitioner and others in the matter of suppression of fact in C.W.J.C. No. 10694 of 2002, the present case (Vigilance RS. Case No. 2 of 2004) was instituted. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a practicing lawyer of this Court and he has to act upon the representation of facts made by his clients before him. He denies that two writ petitions, i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 1963 of 1994 and C.W.J.C. No. 5992 of 1996, as filed by Ali Imam-, were filed through the petitioner, but if is not denied that C.W.J.C. No. 1532 of 1999 was filed by Ali Imam through him. It is also accepted that the latest writ petition C.W.J.C. No. 10694/02 was filed by Ali Imam through the petitioner, but it is explained that the petitioner being an Advocate had acted upon the representation of facts as made by his client before him. It is submitted on behalf of petitioner that while filing C.W.J.C. No. 10694 of 2004, Ali Imam who was the petitioner in that writ petition had not disclosed before the present petitioner about the filing of the said earlier three writ petitions. It is submitted that at the time of filing C.W.J.C. No. 10694 of 2002 Ali Imam had sworn an affidavit about the facts, as disclosed by him and on the basis of his such disclosure, petitioner had acted as an Advocate in the filing of the writ petition in good faith, relying upon the representations made by Ali Imam. It is also submitted that the petitioner had no personal connection with said Ali Imam and the petitions filed by him, excepting his professional work and normally it is not possible to keep track over all the facts stated in earlier writ petitions filed by the clients of an Advocate. 4. It is also submitted that the petitioner had no personal connection with said Ali Imam and the petitions filed by him, excepting his professional work and normally it is not possible to keep track over all the facts stated in earlier writ petitions filed by the clients of an Advocate. 4. Under the circumstances, petitioner Birendra Kumar Sinha is directed to surrender before the court below within ten days from today and on his so surrendering, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Special Judge, Vigilance, Patna in Vigilance RS. Case No. 2 of 2004 (Special Case No. 4 of 2004), subject to conditions as laid down u/s 438(2) Cr. P.C.