Judgment P.K.Sarin, J. 1. The petitioner is coaccused along with fifty two other co-accused in C.B.I. R.C. Case No. 20(A)/96-PAT dated 27.3.1996 under Sections 409/420, 467, 477, 477(A) and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The said case is re-registered version of Chaibasa Sadar PS. Case No. 12/96 dated 20th February, 1996 which was instituted on the basis of complaint of Sri Amit Khare, I.A.S., the then Deputy Commissioner, Chaibasa, in the Singhbhum district. The allegation in the complaint was that Dr. B.N. Sharma (Co-accused), the then District Animal Husbandry Officer, Chaibasa, in criminal conspiracy with some other officers (who are also co-accused) and the Treasury Officer, Chaibasa, withdrew an amount of Rs. 35,66,42,083/- fraudulently on the basis of fake allotment letters against bills of suppliers although either no supply was made at all or grossly short supply was made and thereby wrongful loss has been caused to the State. After investigation C.B.I, submitted charge-sheet showing fraudulent withdrawal of Rs. 37,70,39,743/- during the year 1994-95 from Chaibasa Treasury. Against the petitioner circumstantial evidence has been alleged. Those circumstances are that being Chief Minister and Finance Minister he came to know about excess withdrawal on receipt of the report of the Controller. and Auditor General of India (hereinafter referred to as the C.A.G.) for different years and further he came to know about the excess withdrawal when the projection report to be submitted to the 10th Finance Commission was prepared in which actuals of earlier years were shown. The other circumstances alleged are that he extended the services of co-accused, Dr. S.B. Sinha, Joint Regional Director, Animal Husbandry, Ranchi, and R.K. Das Administrative Officer in the Directorate of Animal Husbandry at Patna. The other circumstance alleged is that the petitioner had recommended for the promotion of Dr. Ram Raj Ram in the year 1988 on the post of Additional Director, Animal Husbandry, and on account of his protection Dr. Ram Raj Ram continued on the post on Director during the relevant period. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that Dr. Ram Raj Ram continued on the post of account of stay order passed by the Supreme Court in a case. The other circumstances alleged are that co-accused, R.K. Rana. M.L.A., purchased bank draft for Rs. Ram Raj Ram continued on the post on Director during the relevant period. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that Dr. Ram Raj Ram continued on the post of account of stay order passed by the Supreme Court in a case. The other circumstances alleged are that co-accused, R.K. Rana. M.L.A., purchased bank draft for Rs. 40,500/- in favour of, Mayo College, Ajmer, for payment towards educational expenses of the daughters of the petitioner and that one J.P. Verma, whose wife and son are also amongst the suppliers who got benefit against the fraudulent withdrawal of the amount in question, had purchased air tickets for the petitioner and his children and thereby had incurred expenses to the tune of Rs. 44,000/-. The further circumstance alleged is that the petitioner passed order for stay of the transfer of Dr. B.N. Sharma, District Animal Husbandry Officer, Chaibasa, when he was transferred on administrative grounds in March, 1993, as he had withdrawn Rs. 50.66 lacs on a single day from Chaibasa Treasury. The order for stay of transfer is said to have been passed in July, 1993, on. the recommendatory letter of one Rajo Singh, M.L.A. The next circumstance alleged is that the petitioner, as Chief Minister and Finance Minister, presented budget every year in the Assembly which contained the amount of expenditure of previous years and thereby petitioner was in full knowledge about the excess expenditure being incurred in the Animal Husbandry Department in earlier years. It is further alleged that petitioner had nexus with co-accused supplier, D.N. Kashyap and Md. Sayeed and also with co-accused, S.B. Sinha, Joint Director, Animal Husbandry. It is alleged that co-accused, S.B. Sinha, was shown as local guardian and one Surya Kant Suraj Kumar, employee of supplier co-accused, Md. Sayeed, was shown as refree in the admission form of the daughter of the petitioner in a School at Ranchi. 2. Sri Rajendra Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has referred to various paragraphs of the lengthy petition to contend that there is sufficient explanation in the petition itself to show that the petitioner had no knowledge about excess or fraudulent withdrawals prior to January, 1996 and he could not have taken action earlier in respect of alleged fraudulent withdrawals. It has been contended that the report of Controller and Auditor General was received after such delay as has been detailed in the charge-sheet itself and the procedure is that such report on receipt by the Government, is sent to the Governor after Chief Minister signs on the memorandum prepared by the Finance Department and Governor thereafter orders it to be laid down before the Assembly as is required by Article 151(2) of the Constitution of India and according to the Budget Manual the report of the Controller and Auditor General stands transferred to the Public Accounts Committee, which examines it and it is the duty of the Public Accounts Committee to present its report after examination before the Assembly and then discussion in the Assembly takes place. It is contended that the petitioner could not have gone through voluminous report of Controller and Auditor General and could not have taken any action at that stage. It is further contended that in the reports of the Controller and Auditor General there is no mention of any fraudulent withdrawal instead excess withdrawals have been alleged. It has been contended that the projection Report to be submitted for the 10th Finance Commission was prepared by the Finance Department, and the petitioner signed the same. Moreover, in the said report there was no mention of the budgetory allocation for the particular year and only actual expenditure figures were shown and one could not have detected about fraudulent withdrawal or withdrawal beyond the sanction budged by looking to that statement. It is contended that the extension of Dr. S.B. Sinha and R.K. Das were granted in normal routine procedure on the recommendation of the concerned department and it should not be taken to be an extension with any ulterior motive. As regards stay to transfer of Dr. B.N. Sharma, it has been contended that the order for stay was passed on the same letter which was given to him by Rajo Singh, M.L.A., and according to the Standing Government instructions no order passed on a chit of paper shall be acted upon unless the same is dealt with in a file and approval of Chief Minister is taken. It is contended that such procedure was not followed by the concerned department. It is contended that such procedure was not followed by the concerned department. It is contended that as Finance Minister the petitioner presented the budget in the Assembly each year and the budget used to be passed after discussion by the Assembly. The petitioner did not go through the entire figures of A.H.Department as the same used to be prepared by the Finance Department, It is contended that even the statement in the budget did not show any fraudulent withdrawal or indicated unauthorised expenditure in any previous year. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that there was no nexus or any conspiracy of the petitioner with the co-accused, D.N. Kashyap, S.B. Sinha and Md. Sayeed. The learned counsel referred to the explanation given by the petitioner in his application for bail that name of S.B. Sinha was entered into the admission form without his knowledge. As regards the purchase of air tickets by J.P. Verma in October, 1995, the contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner had paid cash to Sri P.R. Sinha, his Private Secretary, for purchase of tickets and the petitioner was not aware as to where from and through whom his Private Secretary purchased the air tickets.As regards Bank draft of Rs. 40,500/- got prepared by R. K. Rana M.L.A., (Co-accused) on 19th July, 1995, it is contended that the petitioner has explained in the application that he had paid cash Rs. 81,000/- for preparation of Bank drafts to be remitted to the Mayo College, Ajmer, in connection with the education expenses of his two daughters and those money was handed over to Sri Karoo Ram, Officer on Special Duty at Bihar Bhawan, New Delhi, and the petitioner was not aware as to who got the bank draft prepared. It is contended that even if co-accused R.K. Rana got prepared the Bank draft for Rs. 40.500/- the money was paid by the petitioner and R.K. Rana was non-else than M.L.A. of the party of the petitioner. It has been contended that the amount of Rs. 81,000/- towards education expenses had been shown by the petitioner in his income-tax return for the relevant period. 4. Sri B.K. Shukla, learned counsel for C.B.I., Vehemently opposed the application for bail and referred to various materials/evidence collected by the Investigating Agency. It has been contended that the amount of Rs. 81,000/- towards education expenses had been shown by the petitioner in his income-tax return for the relevant period. 4. Sri B.K. Shukla, learned counsel for C.B.I., Vehemently opposed the application for bail and referred to various materials/evidence collected by the Investigating Agency. It has been contended by him that the petitioner knew about the excess withdrawal when the report of Controller and Auditor General was received as that report mentioned about excess withdrawal and petitioner could have taken action at that time itself to probe about excess withdrawals. It is further contended that when the projection report to be submitted to the Finance Commission was prepared it also contained actual expenditure for three previous years and that report was signed by the petitioner as such he must have knowledge about the excess expenditure in earlier years. It is further contended by Sri Shukla that the petitioner granted extension to Dr. S.B. Sinha and R.K. Das (co-accused) as a favour as they were also co-conspirators in the fraudulent withdrawals from treasury for a number of years and same was the consideration for stay of the transfer of Dr. B.N. Sharma who was transferred on administrative ground when it was brought to notice that he had withdrawn Rs. 50.56 lacs on a single day in March 1993. It is contended that by stay of transfer of Dr. B.N. Sharma co-accused the petitioner helped him to withdraw fraudulently Rs. 37 crores and odd during 1994-95 which is the subject matter of the present prosecution. It has been contended that as Finance Minister it shall be deemed that the petitioner had full knowledge about what was stated in the budget proposals which was presented in Assembly every year and the petitioner had full knowledge that excess expenditure had taken place in previous years. The learned counsel for the C.B.I, has further contended that the petitioner is an influential person and there is likelihood of his tampering with evidence and, therefore, he should not be released on bail. The learned counsel for the C.B.I, has further contended that the petitioner is an influential person and there is likelihood of his tampering with evidence and, therefore, he should not be released on bail. Another contention is that the affidavit sworn in support of the application for bail is not in accordance with the rules of this Court as in the affidavit it has not been shown as to what paragraphs are stated to be true on the basis of personal knowledge and on the basis of information as such the application itself is not to be entertained. The learned counsel for the C.B.I, has placed reliance on the case of Dipendra Nath Sarkar V/s. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 Patna 101 (FB), wherein this Court considered the provisions of Order XIX, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure and held that there is violation of Order XIX, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure if the deponent on affidavit does not clearly state how much of the statement is the statement of knowledge of the deponent and how much of his statement in belief. In the present case, the matter is not being governed by the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure. As it relates to criminal proceedings. The affidavit has been sworn by knowledge. 5. The leaned counsel for the C.B.I, has further contended that fraudulent withdrawal by one Dr. Sheshmuni Ram was brought to the notice of the petitioner and a vigilance case was registered but the petitioner stalled the said enquiry and thereby facilitated the fraudulent withdrawals to go on without any action taken therefor. 6. The learned counsel for the C.B.I, has further contended that during his detention in jail the petitioner had talks with the co-accused on phone and it shows his nexus with other co-accused. 7. The learned counsel for the C.B.I, has further contended that this Court had rejected anticipatory bail application of the petitioner and in that order this Court had made observations considering the same materials and recorded that prima facie illegal withdrawals continued for years would not have remained un-noticed by the petitioner and it is pointer towards alleged conspiracy. It is contended that the said observation holds good while considering the present regular bail application of the petitioner. 8. It is contended that the said observation holds good while considering the present regular bail application of the petitioner. 8. Although the learned counsel for the parties have referred to various materials/evidence and the learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the explanation of the petitioner in respect of the allegations against him it would not be proper or expedient by this Court, in this proceeding, to express any opinion on the effect or merit of the material or evidence as that may cause prejudice to either party at the trial. Therefore, no comment is made on the submissions touching the materials/ evidence collected by the Investigating Agency. As regards likelihood of tampering of evidence, in my opinion, talking of one accused with another accused would not amount to tempering of evidence. It is not alleged that the petitioner had talked to any witness after submission of charge-sheet. Further most of the evidence appears to be what is contained in different files and other documents which have already been submitted along with the charge-sheet to the trial Court. Therefore, there cannot be any question of tempering with evidence when the records are already in custody of the Court. As regards the observation made by this Court, while disposing of anticipatory bail application of the petitioner, it may be observed that the said observation was made while considering the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner. Rejection of anticipatory bail application does not stand as a bar for consideration of a regular bail application. If the contention of the learned Counsel for the C.B.I, is accepted then in every case where the anticipatory bail application of an accused is rejected, the regular bail would not be entertained and even without hearing it should be rejected. I do not find that that is the correct approach. In the observation of the Apex Court in the case of Pokar Ram V/s. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1985 SC 769 , it has been observed that relevant considerations governing the Courts decision in granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 are materially different from these when an application for bail by a person, who is arrested in course of investigation, as also by a person who is convicted and his appeal is pending before the higher Court and bail is sought during the pendency of the appeal. Therefore, the considerations for anticipatory bail are different than the considerations for the regular bail. Anticipatory bail is pre-arrest bail while the regular bail is post-arrest order of bail. Only circumstantial evidence as pointed out in the earlier part of this order is said to be there against the petitioner. He is not said to be directly involved in any fraudulent withdrawal or excess expenditure, as regards the offence under prevention of Corruption Act that is also based on the same material regarding deriving benefit of purchase of air tickets by one J.P. Verma and preparation of Bank draft of Rs. 40,500/- by R.K. Rana. That is also covered by the material which the Investigating Agency has found for the offence of conspiracy. The explanation of the petitioner or the defence may be considered by the trial Court and not by this Court in this proceeding. 9. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, and considering the entire contentions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 10. The petitioner, Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav, is directed to be enlarged on bail on his furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, C.B.I. (A.H.D.), Patna, in Special Case No. 22 of 1996 arising out of Criminal Revision Case 20(A) of 1996, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall not leave the country without permission of the trial Court and that the petitioner shall surrender his passport in the trial Court if already not surrendered before any authority.