Judgment Dharampal Sinha, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the C. B. I. as also learned counsel for the State. It may be mentioned that Mr. P. K. Shahi, submitted, that the petitioners, who had filed Public Interest Litigation case has engaged him to appeal in this case, so he should be heard and a vakalatnama has also been filed. But I do not think that those petitioners, who had filed, public interest litigation, has have any locus to have any say in the bail matter. 2. The first information report of this case, which is R. C.20 (A)/96-pat, indicates that this F. I. R. was drawn up after a team had made enquiry into the matter as ordered by the Deputy Commissioner, Chaibasa, Shri Amit Sharma. From a perusal of the formal part of the f. I. R. , it appears that the time of occurrence is during the year 1994-95. Broadly indicates huge amount of withdrawal from Chaibasa and it contains the names of 52 persons including some firms and company, which were suppliers besides, some officers of animal Husbandry Department and its treasury. The petitioner is not named in the F. I. R. , even though it was lodged at least after some preliminary investigation done by a team led by an Officer of commercial Tax Department. In the f. I. R. nothing has been said against the petitioner. It is, however, said that during the investigation certain facts/circumstances had transpired against the petitioner, which according to the C. B. I. , would indicate that the petitioner was in conspiracy with at least some persons, who were involved in the fraudulent withdrawal of huge amount of money from the treasury on the basis of forged, fabricated or fake bills or sanction orders. 3. The facts and circumstances alleged against the petitioner appear to be indicated in the observations of the learned Special Judge about the stand taken before him by the counsel for the c. B. I. , who is the Investigating Agency of this case. The observations are as follows: "sri L. R. Ansari, Spl. 3. The facts and circumstances alleged against the petitioner appear to be indicated in the observations of the learned Special Judge about the stand taken before him by the counsel for the c. B. I. , who is the Investigating Agency of this case. The observations are as follows: "sri L. R. Ansari, Spl. P. P. for the c. B. I. , while opposing anticipatory bail application, submitted that in course of investigation, it has come that Sri Jagannath mishra, had given political patronage to a. H. D. Scamasters in league with Sri Lalu prasad, Chief Minister, which is evident from the fact that D. A. G. had reported fraudulent withdrawal in the matter of transportation of cattle and cattle feed etc. and in the said matter, the Cabinet Minister incharge A. H. D. had ordered for prob by C. B. I. However, Lalu Prasad on the basis of notes of Chief Secretary ordered for investigation by the vigilance and subsequent thereto, Dr. Jagannath Mishra wrote a letter on 15-11-90 for not undertaking any enquiry in the matter as the then Regional Director, Sri K. N. Jha, who was related to fraudulent withdrawal is relative of Jagannath Mishra and Sri Mishra had also stated in the letter that since the matter has already been enquired into by the Director and Regional Director, and nothing wrong has been found, thus, the matter requires no future action and thereafter, the matter remained pending without any action until it was raised in Council as call Attention Motion. He also submitted that Dr. S. B. Sinha, who is one of master mind behind the entire conspiracy and was acquainted with Jagannath Mishra, was due to superannuate on 31-12-1993 and Jagannath Mishra on 6-12-93 wrote a letter to the Chief Minister, recommending grant of extension in service of S. B Sinha for two years and on the file initiated on the basis of said letter, Lalco Pd. ordered extension to S. B. Sinha, for one year by order dt.30-12-93. Sri Ansari has also submitted that the relation of S. B. Sinha and Jagannath Mishra, is also evident from the fact that he has granted telephone connection to daughter-in-law of S. B. Sinha out of his discretionary quota. Submitting about the link of Jagannath mishra with other conspirators, Sri ansari asserted that in 1988, when Jagannath Mishra was chief Minister, he entertained letter of Lalu Pd. Submitting about the link of Jagannath mishra with other conspirators, Sri ansari asserted that in 1988, when Jagannath Mishra was chief Minister, he entertained letter of Lalu Pd. Yadav dt.30-9-88 when he was leader of opposition in Assembly for promotion of Dr. Ram Raj Ram, the then additional director to the post of director, A. H. D. , which was accorded him. Continuing his submissions, Sri Ansari submitted that similarly, the matter relating to Vigilance P. S. Case No.34/90 pending before the Vigilance Sri Jagannath Mishra vide his letter dt.23.8.90 recommended that the enquiry should be confined to the members of Central Purchase Committee, alone, and it should not be extended to other officials of A. H. D. , so that they should not be demoralised. Sri Ansari, while continuing his argument stated that whenever any matter which might have resulted in the exposure of scam came in process when un-earthed Jagannath mishra came to rescue to scamasters which shows his agreement with other conspirators. He further submitted that it has come in statement of witnesses including statement of one R. K. Das recorded under Sec.164 Cr. P. C. that accused persons of A. H. Scam were got protection of high political leader including jagannath Mishra, R. K. Rana and Lalu Pd. He further submitted that it has also come during investigation that Dr. Jagannath mishra was paid handsome amount by s. B. Sinha for the role played by him for protecting the accused persons of scam. "continuing his argument, learned, spl. P. P. C. B. I. submitted that in a conspiracy, agreement between the conspirators can well be inferred from the facts involved in the case and he further submitted that in a case of conspiracy, it is not necessary that accused should remain associated with illegal agreement at every stage rather his single action showing his link with the conspiracy is sufficient to stem his act of conspiracy. Learned Spl. P. P. by concluding his arguments, submitted that the petitioner jagannath Mishra has not been able to show any reason for grant of anticipatory bail. " 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strongly argued that none of the facts and circumstances on which the prosecution has sought to rely will establish the fact that the petitioner was in conspiracy with other accused involved in this case. " 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strongly argued that none of the facts and circumstances on which the prosecution has sought to rely will establish the fact that the petitioner was in conspiracy with other accused involved in this case. Referring to the letter of recommendation dated 5-12-1993, which is Annexure-2 to this petition, he has submitted that this letter only was a sort of recommendation made for extension of service of an officer; and as a leader of opposition the petitioner made that recommendation; and that such recommendations are done in several cases, and this will not establish any link between the alleged offenders or offences and the petitioner. According to his submission at the time when recommendation was made, the petitioner could not be deemed to be aware of all that was happening in the treasuries and could not foresee many of the fraudulent acts of withdrawal which were done later. As regards a circumstance that is alleged against the petitioner that while acting as Chief Minister in the year 1988 he had changed the seniority list and made one Dr. Ram Raj Ram senior to another person and Dr. Ram Raj Ram was involved in this case, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was not the Chief minister in the year 1988 nor did he make any revision in the seniority list of ram Raj Ram and he has pointed out that the petitioner had rather given a note later when he was Chief Minister suggesting holding of meeting of Selection Committee for appointment of suitable candidate in place of Dr. Ram raj Ram. 5. About another circumstance relied upon by the prosecution that one dipesh Chandak has made statement that the petitioner was paid some heavy amounts by two persons, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Dipesh had only said that he had heard only by two persons saying so; but those two persons from whom Dipesh had allegedly learnt about payment have not been cited as chargesheet witnesses. 6. 6. About the circumstance relied upon by the C. B. I that the petitioner had given one telephone connection to a daughter-in-law of S. B. Sinha, who according to the C. B. I. counsel was kingpin of the whole affairs of fraudulent withdrawal of the huge amount cannot be considered to be a circumstance indicating a link of conspiracy between the petitioner and those, who had been involved directly in the fraudulent withdrawal of the huge amount by forge bills, forged sanction orders etc. About the circumstance, which has been relied upon by the C. B. I. that the petitioner had scuttled proper investigation or enquiry by making suggestion that it should proceed only against specified persons, it too cannot, according to the submission of the petitioners counsel, be said to be circumstance against the petitioner to establish the link between the petitioner and the offences/offenders. He has further contended that it is well established law that when only circumstances are relied upon for showing involvement of any accused, the circumstance should be also clinching and conclusive and should lead only to one conclusion about involvement; but in this case all the circumstances even taken together, according to his submission, will not establish definite or conclusive link against the petitioner and the offence allegedly committed by the others. 7. On the other hand learned counsel for the C. B. I. besides relying on the aforementioned facts has emphasised the fact that totality of the amount withdrawn fraudulently is very huge; and against S. B. Sinha, who has deeply involved, there was already a case, and yet extension had been recommended by the petitioner for his service, which will indicate a close link between him and the petitioner, which will also be indicated from grant a telephone connection to the daughter-in-law of S. B. Sinha. He has further emphasised that this petitioner had scuttled Vigilance case No.34/90 by suggesting that investigation should be confined to limited persons, who were named in Vigilance case No.34/90, so that other involved, but not named could be protected. He further urges that when a test audit report had been submitted, instead of allowing holding of proper enquiry this petitioner had suggested that it should be done by Regional Deputy Commissioner. According to his submission there was deep root in the conspiracy and so the petitioner should not be allowed privilege of anticipatory bail. 8. He further urges that when a test audit report had been submitted, instead of allowing holding of proper enquiry this petitioner had suggested that it should be done by Regional Deputy Commissioner. According to his submission there was deep root in the conspiracy and so the petitioner should not be allowed privilege of anticipatory bail. 8. Learned counsel for the C. B. I. has further advanced an argument that in the year 1985 there was an allegation that Dr. S. B. Sinha, who had been posted at Ranchi for nearly twenty years had fraudulently withdrawn more than 50 Crores and a Committee had prepared a report that was printed in guljarbagh press and thereafter headed over to the Members of Legislative Assembly in the year 1990. According to him, it can be presumed that the petitioner was well knowing about the conduct of Dr. S. B. Sinha at least in the year 1990 and even than in the year 1993 he recommended for extension of service, which indicates his clear-cut involvement. As regards this argument, however, it appears that the stand was not taken before the Special Judge. What happened eventually to the report is also not clear. At any rate when this case relates to withdrawal from the treasury at Chaibasa in 1994-95, those previous events can only indicate a remote link. In any case the petitioner when recommending for extension could not be expected to anticipate about fraudulent withdrawal, which were to be made in future. 9. Now for the purpose of disposal of this bail matter, I do not think that it will be proper to go into the merits of this case or to give any finding which may prejudice either party, as the matter is pending before the Special Judge. It is, therefore, not necessary to indicate whether the contention of one side is correct or of the other side. 10. However, there appear to be certain aspects and features, which in my opinion, seem to be relevant here for consideration of bail matter. It is, therefore, not necessary to indicate whether the contention of one side is correct or of the other side. 10. However, there appear to be certain aspects and features, which in my opinion, seem to be relevant here for consideration of bail matter. These are indicated below: First, even though the first information report was lodged after preliminary enquiry by a team led by an Officer of Commercial Taxes department, no whisper has been made in the F. I. R. against the petitioner secondly it is not even stated by the c. B. I. that the petitioner was directly involved in the fraudulent withdrawal of the huge amount from the Chaibasa treasury, wherefrom, no doubt, as is indicated in the EI. R. huge withdrawl had been made on the basis of forge and fabricated bills and sanction orders when the sanctioned amount in tha year was only for four lacs. There is no evidence against the petitioner being directly involved in the withdrawal some of the facts and circumstances alleged against the petitioner appear to be of the nature of only some recommendations, on which action could or could not be taken by the competent authorities concerned. Such recommendations can constitute, if at all, only a remote link. A third feature of the case is that the C. B. I. did not think it proper and advisable to arrest the petitioner a any stage of investigation and investiga tion has already been completed and chargesheet submitted before the Special Judge, and it is not said that the petitioner at any stage of investigation, put any hurdles or did not co-operate the evidence regarding actual payment to the petitioner in two instalments by two persons (M. S. Vedi and Umesh dubey in January, 1995 and February, 1997) as was said to be stated by accused dipesh Chandak in his statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal procedure necessarily remains hearsay, because the two persons from whom he claimed to have learnt about the payment have not been cited as chargesheet witnesses. The petitioner had been previously the Chief Minister on more than one occasion and he was Leader of Opposition also, and at present is a Member of Raj Sabha. The petitioner had been previously the Chief Minister on more than one occasion and he was Leader of Opposition also, and at present is a Member of Raj Sabha. So, he has moorings and roots in the society and the Slate of bihar, and this attachment with the society and the State reduces any risk of his absconding or fleeing away from the law. Further the Petitioner is also said to be of old age and suffering from certain ailments, in proof of which some documents have also been annexed to the petition. To be sure, the learned counsel for the C. B. I. has submitted that the ailment is not serious; but ailment and age are normally considered to be a relevant factor for the purpose of granting bail. 11. Considering all these aspects and features in the context of the fact and circumstances as disclosed from the petition and its annexures, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case in which prayer for anticipatory bail should be allowed. Accordingly, I direct that in the event of arrest/surrender in connection with R. C.204/96, Special Case No.22/96, the petitioner, namely, Dr. Jagannath Mishra shall be enlarged on bail in furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000 (rupees fifty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge Court (A. H. Case), Patna, in the aforesaid case, subject to the conditions as laid down under sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 12. Anticipatory bail will continue to be operative till the trial court considers and passes any further order accordingly for regular bail application and in case of rejection of regular bail petition by the trial Court it will be operative for a week, thereafter, so that the petitioner may approach appropriate higher forum. This observation has been considered necessary in the context of the observation made by the Supreme Court in the case of K. L. Verma V/s. State and another, reported in 1996 B. B. C. J.87 (November issue ). Bail Allowed.