Judgment Dharampal Sinha, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the C. B. I, and also learned counsel for the State of Bihar. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions while making prayer for bail. His first contention is that on 12.9.1996, the petitioner had been taken in custody in connection with another case bearing s. C. No.24 of 1996, and later on 9-12-1996, the C. B. I, prayed that he may be remanded in custody in yet another case, but so far as this case is concerned, the C. B. I. made a prayer for remanding the petitioner, in custody only belatedly, on 27-3-1997 and this is a mala fide act on the part of the C. B. I. 3. His second contention is that although the main prosecution case is regarding withdrawal of huge amount from the Treasury by different persons either without sanction of that amount or on the basis of forged sanction order and some forged bills, and obtaining the withdrawal amount for supply of materials, which were never supplied by different suppliers, the petitioner is not said to be directly involved either in preparing any bill of withdrawal or forging any bill or sanctioning order, and so he deserves bail. 4. His third contention is that the petitioner was elected as Member of the legislative Assembly for the first time in April, 1995 and after election he, as a political person, could accept hospitality of several persons and only because he had accepted hospitality and as alleged by the C. B. I, and some persons had allegedly procured air ticket for travelling by him from Calcutta, and for somebody paid his bills of hotel, it cannot necessarily be implied that he had been concerned in any way with the withdrawal of the huge amount on forged/fake bills or sanction order and getting money without supplying any material. 5. His next contention is that the petitioner has already been interrogated by the C. B. I, officials, and so keeping of him in jail is un-necessary. Further he has contended that the petitioner has some family and has got root here and has been elected on support of the people and so there is no chance of his fleeing away from the country. Nor is there any chance of tempering with the evidence, according to the submission. Further he has contended that the petitioner has some family and has got root here and has been elected on support of the people and so there is no chance of his fleeing away from the country. Nor is there any chance of tempering with the evidence, according to the submission. He has also submitted in this connection that the petitioner is ready to abide by whatever conditions shall be imposed on granting of bail. Another argument of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the materials alleged against the petitioner are only statement of such persons made before the investigating Agency during the course of investigation, as have been made co-accused, and such statements cannot be given legally any weight. 6. On the other hand learned counsel for the C. B. I. has submitted that so far this case is concerned the petitioner was remanded on 27-3-1997, and in some other cases the petitioner has been allowed bail only under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure not on merit and so the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 12-9-1996 in other cases is immaterial. If no prayer for remand was made for in connection with this case by the C. B. I. It cannot be an act of mala fide. According to him, only when materials were collected justifying remand in the case in hand, prayer for remanding him was made. 7. His second contention is that the petitioner after election as a Member of the Legislative Assembly became a public servant and in view of the provisions of Sec.13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act he abused his position and accepted air ticket from the very persons, who had been indulged in withdrawing and obtaining the huge amount without actual supply of materials, and so it will amount to misconduct. 8. He has further contended that during the investigation it has also transpired that the petitioner had been found to have money and the properties, of a proportion to his known source of income, and previously he was only in the employment of the State government and he could not acquire so much wealth. 8. He has further contended that during the investigation it has also transpired that the petitioner had been found to have money and the properties, of a proportion to his known source of income, and previously he was only in the employment of the State government and he could not acquire so much wealth. His further argument is that the petitioner used to take benefits and advantages of various sorts from those very persons, who were a swin dling away from the State Exchequer huge amount of money, and he have protection to them by fusing his political position and connection. He has further contended that the C. B. I, has collected some materials that even while in jail he hatched up conspiracy to eliminate two persons as would appear from statement of one Umesh Prasad singh, working as Section Officer of the cabinet Secretariat, and if such a person is released, he is most likely to use his influence to temper with the evidence. 9. I have considered carefully the ubmissions made by the learned coun-sel and have gone through the petition and annexures, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions, I. am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to allow bail to the petitioner at this stage of investigation. So, I reject the prayer for bail of this petitioner. 10. It is needless to state that the investigating Agency will expedite the investigation of the case and complete the investigation as early as possible. Bail Rejected.