Judgment D. S. Dhaliwal, J. 1. This order will also dispose of Cr. Misc. Nos.11637/97, 11708/97 and 11757/97 as all the four applications for anticipatory bail arise out of one and the same case i. e. R. C. Case No.20-A of 1996 (Special Case no.22/96) under Sections 409, 420, 467, 471, 477, 477-A, 201, 511 read with section 120 of the Indian Penal Code and section 13 (2) read with Sections 13 (1) (c) and 13 (1) of the Prevention of corruption Act. 2. It appears that on the written report of Sri Amit Khare, the Deputy commissioner, West Singhbhum, chaibasa, case F. I. R. No.12/96 was registered in Police Station Sadar, chaibasa in respect of fraudulent withdrawals from the Government treasury by the officials of the Animal husbandry Department (for short a. H. D. ) in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy of the accused persons named therein. Subsequently, on the basis of the order passed by the High court in a batch of writ application and in view of the order passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in S. L. P. (Civil)No.5811/96 the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short c. B. I. ) took over the investigation of the aforesaid criminal case and the other cases registered in various Police Stations regarding fraudulent withdrawals by the animal Husbandry Department commonly known as fodder Scam. Consequently, Chaibasa Sadar P. S. Case No.12/96 came to be registered as R. C. No.20-A/96-Patna (Special Case No.22/96 ). Although the aforesaid case was registered only in respect to the financial year 1994-95 but during the investigation by the C. B. I. it transpired that the fraudulent withdrawals were the result of a well hatched criminal conspiracy under the patronage of high-ups in bureaucracy as well as the politicians in power; and that the fraudulent withdrawals were not restricted to the aforesaid period and that the number of the persons involved in the crime was also not restricted to the number of the accused mentioned in the First Information Report. 3. Sri Lalu Prasad, the present chief Minister of the State (the petitioner herein), Sri Bhola Ram toofani, the Minister Incharge of animal Husbandry Department in the cabinet, (petitioner in Cr. Misc. 3. Sri Lalu Prasad, the present chief Minister of the State (the petitioner herein), Sri Bhola Ram toofani, the Minister Incharge of animal Husbandry Department in the cabinet, (petitioner in Cr. Misc. No.11637/97), Sri Vidya Sagar Nisad, who also happened to be a Cabinet Minister incharge of Animal Husbandry Department for some time and is now stated to be a Member of Parliament, (petitioner in Cr. Misc. No.11708/97) and Sri chandra Deo Prasad Verma, who was also Minister Incharge of the aforesaid department, (petitioner in Cr. Misc. No.11757/97) apprehending their arrest in the aforesaid case have filed applications separately under Sec.438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for anticipatory bail. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for all the petitioners, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the C. B. I. at length in all the four applications and have perused the materials on records with their assistance. 5. Mr. Rajendra Singh, the Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri lalu Prasad drew my attention to a judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia V/s. State of punjab reported in, AIR 1980 SC 1632 . Relying on the same the learned counsel submitted that for grant of anticipatory bail no special case is required to be made out. Counsel maintained that the primary consideration with the Court in such like matters is as to whether an accused seeking anticipatory bail will make himself available for the trial and since refusal of bail results in denial of the valuable right of personal liberty, the grant of bail is a matter of Rule. Counsel further submitted that in the instant case the petitioner had joined the investigation and the prosecution case is mainly based on documentary evidence and there is no chance of the petitioner fleeing from justice. Counsel further submitted that in the instant case the petitioner had joined the investigation and the prosecution case is mainly based on documentary evidence and there is no chance of the petitioner fleeing from justice. It has been further submitted with vehemence that the petitioner is not the main accused as he is not directly involved in withdrawal of any amount from the government Treasury and that the only allegation against him is that of a criminal conspiracy with the Other accused resulting in fraudulent withdrawals but the C. B. I. after having investigated the case for such a long period has not been able to bring forward any direct evidence in support of the alleged conspiracy which is sought to be proved merely on the basis of certain circumstances which in themselves are not of clinching nature so as to sustain a criminal charge. 6. It has been further submitted that till January, 1996 it never came to the notice of the Government that the amounts were being fraudulently withdrawn from the Government treasury and that on coming to know about the aforesaid fact the cases were registered in respect to the said illegal withdrawals under the orders of the petitioner and as such, it cannot be said that the petitioner Sri Lalu Prasad had been conniving with the accused responsible for fraudulent withdrawals or that he ever tried to shield the persons responsible for fraudulent withdrawals or to scuttle the prosecution. Referring to the allegation of extension in service of S. B. Sinha and cancellation of the transfer order of B. N. Sharma, who are said to be the main accused in the case, it is submitted that the orders were passed in accordance with the Rules as there was nothing against these officers in their service record. 7. Mr. Sakil Ahmad Khan, the learned counsel for Sri Bhola Ram toofani and Sri Vidya Sagar Nisad and mr. Chandra Shekhar, the learned counsel for Sri Chandra Deo Prasad verma, during their arguments adopted the line 6f argument advanced by the learned counsel for Sri Lalu Prasad. Mr. 7. Mr. Sakil Ahmad Khan, the learned counsel for Sri Bhola Ram toofani and Sri Vidya Sagar Nisad and mr. Chandra Shekhar, the learned counsel for Sri Chandra Deo Prasad verma, during their arguments adopted the line 6f argument advanced by the learned counsel for Sri Lalu Prasad. Mr. Sakil Ahmad Khan further submitted that there is absolutely no evidence cir-cumstantial or otherwise to show that sri Toofani was a party to any criminal conspiracy; and that Sri Tbofani had been co-operating during the investigation and the only material alleged against him is that while he was working as Minister, AH. D. , he dealt with a file relating to stay of transfer of one of the main accused of the case, namely, B. N. Sharma, District Animal Husbandry Officer, Chaibasa, on the recommendation of Rajo Singh, Congress M. L. A. , for warded to Sri Lalu Prasad, the Chief minister. Counsel maintained that he had dealt with the file in the capacity of minister for the State and that transfer was stayed by the Chief Minister. 8. As regards the allegations in respect to the extension of services of s. B. Sinha and R. K. Das, counsel submitted that there was no adverse remark in the file and that the petitioner made the endorsement on the file believing the records to be true. It has been further contended that the statement of dr. Shashi Kumar regarding passing over of the money to the petitioner cannot be accepted as legal evidence being hearsay and of vague nature, more so when this witness of his own showing is an accomplice of the other accused of this case. Another argument of the counsel is that Sri Toofani is an old man of 80 years and is suffering from various ailments and as such, if he is kept in custody his health is likely to deteriorate. 9. Mr. Sakil Ahmad Khan raised similar pleas while pressing the petition of Sri Vidya Sagar Nisad. Referring to the allegations regarding the stay of transfer of B. N. Sharma, the counsel submitted that the orders were passed by the Chief Minister and the file was simply routed through the petitioner. He further submitted that the file indicated nothing against the Officer and it was mentioned that he had been transferred on administrative grounds alongwith number of other Officers of the Department. He further submitted that the file indicated nothing against the Officer and it was mentioned that he had been transferred on administrative grounds alongwith number of other Officers of the Department. Counsel maintained that it was not within the knowledge of the petitioner when he dealt with the file that B. N. Sharma was involved in any fraudulent withdrawal. As regards the other allegation of his having taken no action against B. N. Sharma in respect of fraudulent withdrawals even after when the question was raised in the Assembly, counsel submitted that the Committee had already been constituted to enquire into the matter. Therefore, under the Rules no enquiry could proceed till the report of the committee was placed before the house. 10. Mr. Chandra Shekhar, learned counsel, while pressing the prayer for anticipatory bail of Sri Chandra Deo prasad Verma submitted that the petitioner was Animal Husbandry Minister only for a short period from 15-9-1993 to 3-4-1995 and he also held the charge of Medical Education and Family welfare and that he had only endorsed the extension file of S. B. Sinha when it came from the Chief Minister for putting up the file and thereafter he had no role in the extension matter. He also contended that the allegations of the c. B. I, against the petitioner are based on surmises and conjecture and there is no legal evidence in support of the allegations. As regards the extension of services of R. K. Das and S. B. Sinha counsel submitted that the petitioner being Incharge of the Department simply referred the file to the Chief minister with his note and extension of services was ordered by the latter. It has also been submitted that the petitioner is having a political career spanning over 40 years and that the allegations of his having received pecuniary benefits have been levelled simply to tarnish his image. The counsel relied upon the judgment in a case reported in 1997 IAD (Delhi) 173 (Sri p. V. Narasimha Rao V/s. State (C. B. I.), whereby anticipatory bail was allowed to Sri P. V. Narasimha Rao and Capt. Satish Sharma. 11. Mr. The counsel relied upon the judgment in a case reported in 1997 IAD (Delhi) 173 (Sri p. V. Narasimha Rao V/s. State (C. B. I.), whereby anticipatory bail was allowed to Sri P. V. Narasimha Rao and Capt. Satish Sharma. 11. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the C. B. I. , opposing the applications submitted that the present case is one out of the long chain of as many as 47 cases relating to fraudulent withdrawals from the government Treasury and causing heavy loss to the exchequer running into several crores of rupees. Counsel maintained that the allegations against the petitioners are of their having entered into the criminal conspiracy with the other accused and as it is impossible to adduce direct evidence of conspiracy the offence can only be proved from the inferences drawn from the various acts of commissions and omissions on the part of the conspirators in pursuance of a common design. Counsel maintained that there are number of circumstances which go to show that the petitioners were deeply involved in the conspiracy. Elaborating the circumstances the counsel submitted that on 5-4-1990 a letter was sent by the D. A. G. , Ranchi to the Regional Development Commissioner with a copy to the Secretary complaining about the huge withdrawals made by A. H. D. on account of transportation of cattle and feed and it was also brought to the notice that the truck numbers mentioned in the bills were in fact the numbers of vehicles like scooters and oil tankers which could not have been used for the said purpose. Counsel maintained that Sri Ram jeevan Singh, the Minister Incharge of the Department, suggested for C. B. I. enquiry in the matter but the petitioner sri Lalu Prasad ordered for only a vigilance enquiry which was also not carried out and the matter was thatched on the ground that no action was to be taken awaiting the report of Public Accounts Committee. Counsel maintained that B. N. Sharma, who was working as district Animal Husbandry Officer, chaibasa, was transferred but all the four petitioners playing their role stayed the transfer orders and the said officer had made fraudulent withdrawal of Rs.50 lacs from the Treasury on a single day. Counsel maintained that B. N. Sharma, who was working as district Animal Husbandry Officer, chaibasa, was transferred but all the four petitioners playing their role stayed the transfer orders and the said officer had made fraudulent withdrawal of Rs.50 lacs from the Treasury on a single day. In these circumstances, the vigilance counsel contended that it cannot be said that the petitioners had no knowledge of the fraudulent withdrawals prior to filing of C. A. G. report in June, 1996. 12. Counsel further submitted that the knowledge of the petitioner Sri Lalu prasad is also evident from the fact that c. A. G. report for the year 1988-89 indicating excess withdrawals bears his endorsement dated 18-12-1993. Counsel maintained that excessive withdrawals continued to rise at alarming rate from year 1988-89 to 1994-95. The investigation revealed that excess withdrawals were 70 per cent in the year 1988-89 and these went up to 229 per cent in the year 1994-95 but the petitioners turned a blind eye to this fact and that the petitioner Sri Lalu Prasad was also holding the charge of Finance Department. 13. Referring to the other circumstance the counsel for C. B. I. went on to submit that besides turning a blind eye to the excessive withdrawals as submitted earlier there are materials to show that the petitioners gave incentives to the accused playing key roles and also extended them uncalled for protection and patronage. In this respect, counsel highlighted the extension of the services of Dr. S. B. Sinha despite the objections raised by the finance Department and that the investigation revealed that during the extended period of service of Dr. S. B. Sinha a huge sum of Rs.170 crores was withdrawn fraudulently from the treasury. Not only this, the counsel maintained that the protection and patronage was extended to Dr. Ramraj ram as he was promoted as Director, animal Husbandry Department, although he was quite junior. S. B. Sinha a huge sum of Rs.170 crores was withdrawn fraudulently from the treasury. Not only this, the counsel maintained that the protection and patronage was extended to Dr. Ramraj ram as he was promoted as Director, animal Husbandry Department, although he was quite junior. Transfer of another Officer, namely, B. N. Sharma against whom there were allegations of fraudulent withdrawals while he was posted at Chaibasa was stayed and one dayanand, who is also an accused in the case being a bogus supplier to the department, was appointed as Chairman "20 point programme" by the Chief minister Sri Lalu Prasad giving him status of Minister for the State and that the petitioners have been making concerted efforts to scuttle the enquiry and investigation into the matter. 14. It has been further contended that during investigation it came to light that the Chief Minister Sri Lalu Prasad had been taking pecuniary benefits as there are materials to indicate that five air tickets from Patna to Delhi and for the return journey from Delhi to Patna of the value of about Rs.44,000/- were purchased for the family members of Sri lalu Prasad by one J. P Verma, who is said to be relation of one of the main accused in the Scam and that Sri Verma has now made a further statement before the C. B. I. alleging therein that he is being pressurised and coerced to sign a receipt in the back date. 15. Counsel submitted that besides the aforesaid circumstances there are statements of Shashi Kumar Singh, R. K. Das and Dipesh Chandak with regard to pay off to the petitioners of various amounts and the print out of the various telephone numbers obtained by the C. B. I. goes to show that there have been telephone calls from the telephone installed at the residence of the Chief minister to S. B. Sinha and D. N. Kashyap and vice versa even when the aforesaid two main accused were confined in jail. Counsel for the C. B. I. thus submitted that the petitioners should not be allowed the privilege of anticipatory bail. 16. Counsel for the C. B. I. thus submitted that the petitioners should not be allowed the privilege of anticipatory bail. 16. For the purpose of disposal of these bail petitions to mind it is neither necessary nor will it be proper to minutely appreciate the evidence collected by the Investigating agency as it is likely to prejudice the case of either party as the matter is pending trial before the Special Judge. 17. Having appreciated the contentions raised before me by both the sides, i find that the case relates to huge defalcation of public money from the government Treasuries on the basis of fraudulent withdrawals finding their root in a deep-seated conspiracy having a nexus between high-ups of the Animal husbandry Department and their political bosses. Prima facie I am of the view that such huge illegal withdrawals continuing for years could not have remained un-noticed by the petitioners and as no notice of the same appears to have been taken is another pointer towards the alleged conspiracy. The allegations which have surfaced against the petitioners as a result of the investigation if found to be true are not only a crime against the State but also against the Nation and the very people as hard-earned money of innocent tax payers have been swindled away. 18. As regards Sri P. V Narasimha raos case (supra) relied upon on behalf of the petitioners after going through the same I find that in that case the offence alleged was only under the Prevention of Corruption act which was punishable with a maximum sentence of imprisonment for six years whereas in the instant case the offences alleged also carry a sentence of imprisonment for life. In AIR 1985 SC 969 (Poker Ram V/s. The State of Rajasthan) a Full Bench of the Apex Court having taken notice of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Gurbaksh singh Sibbia V/s. State of Punjab relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners held that while exercising the discretion in the matter of grant of anticipatory bail the nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, the reasonable possibility of the applicants presence not being secured at trial, a reasonable apprehension that the witnesses will be tampered with and the larger interests of the public or the State are some of the considerations which the Court has to keep in mind while deciding an application for anticipatory bail. 19. Bearing these considerations in mind and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case for extending the benefit of anticipatory bail and as such, the prayer for bail of the petitioners is rejected. All the four petitions in hand are dismissed. 20. It is, however, observed that anything said in the order will have no bearing on the merits of the prosecution or defence case. A copy of this order be placed in all the three connected petitions. Bail Rejected.