Judgment S.S.Nijjar, J. 1. This application for bail is moved by Shri N.K. Jain, who was earlier working as the Home Secretary, Union Territory, Chandigarh. Initially, an FIR was registered on 6th April, 2000, under Sections 13(1)(1), 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120-B Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code, have been added. The basic allegations are that K.B. Goel had been collecting money from various persons whose matters were pending with the Union Territory on behalf of the petitioner. 2. K.B. Goel had been placed under suspension by the previous Home Secretary, Anuradha Gupta on the ground that he had distorted facts about the proceedings of the Anomaly Committee for revision of pay scales, thereby causing undue benefits to Laboratory Attendants. When the file was put up before N.K. Jain for appointment of the Inquiry Officer, he dropped the charge sheet by merely issuing a simple warning to K.B. Goel. For this favour, it is alleged that the petitioner had been paid a sum of Rs. 25,000/- by Goel. After reinstatement, K.B. Goel was used as an instrument to collect money from various other persons who were in need of assistance of the Home Secretary. The details of the instances in which the petitioner allegedly collected money can be summarised as follows : (i) N.K. Jain dropped a charge sheet for major penalty against K.B. Goel, Superintendent, by accepting illegal gratification amounting to Rs. 25,000/- from K.B. Goel in July, 1999. (ii) N.K. Jain accepted Rs. 4 lacs from Baljit Singh, Motor Vehicle Inspector in STA, Chandigarh through K.B. Goel, Superintendent, for his posting as Asstt. Secretary and promising to regularise him on the same post during the year 1999. (iii) N.K. Jain promoted Amarjit Singh Driver as Inspector, Weights & Measures, after he agreed to pay Rs. 1 lac and actually paid Rs. 30,000/- in November 1999 through K.B. Goel and demoted him subsequently after he could not pay the balance amount of Rs. 70,000/-. (iv) N.K. Jain reinstated Balbir Singh, a dismissed conductor, CTU, in lieu of receiving Rs. 1 lac as illegal gratification through K.B. Goel in October, 1999. (v) N.K. Jain posted Karma Singh, Superintendent as Sr. Assistant in STA, Chandigarh, after receipt of Rs. 50,000/- from him through K.B. Goel as illegal gratification in July, 1999. 70,000/-. (iv) N.K. Jain reinstated Balbir Singh, a dismissed conductor, CTU, in lieu of receiving Rs. 1 lac as illegal gratification through K.B. Goel in October, 1999. (v) N.K. Jain posted Karma Singh, Superintendent as Sr. Assistant in STA, Chandigarh, after receipt of Rs. 50,000/- from him through K.B. Goel as illegal gratification in July, 1999. (vi) N.K. Jain received illegal gratification amounting to Rs. 1 lac from Jaswant Rai Jain on the assurance that he will help in getting the accused persons arrested and stolen goods recovered/restored in case FIR No. 30 dated 23.2.1996 of P.S. Industrial Area, Chandigarh during the year 1999. Subsequently, K.B. Goel demanded Rs. 3 lacs from Jaswant Rai Jain for helping him in the case but Jaswant Rai Jain refused to pay more money. (vii) N.K. Jain, demanded Rs. 2/- per card from M/s Tata Infotech Ltd., New Delhi for signing the contract pertaining to the computerization of driving licences and registration of vehicles in December, 1999. (viii) N.K. Jain collected Rs. 1 lac each for the selection of 5 clerks and Rs. 1.25 lacs each for the selection of two steno-typists through Sh. K.B. Goel in November/December, 1999. To bring the candidate who had agreed to pay the money on the top of merit list the original type test sheets were removed and were replaced with the type test sheets prepared subsequently. (ix) N.K. Jain issued orders for the posting of Amit Bakshi as Clerk in Education Department in November 1999 by flouting the instructions and various pronouncements of Honble Supreme Court of India that once the selection process is over, for future vacancies fresh applications are to be called to give chance to all the eligible candidates. 3. A perusal of the aforesaid charges make it abundantly clear that if the same are proved, the petitioner would have to face very serious consequences. 4. Mr. Baldev Singh, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 18th May, 2000. The period between the registration of the FIR from 6th April, 2000 till 9th May, 2000 was spent by the petitioner knocking on the doors of various Courts to secure anticipatory bail. The matter was taken upto the Supreme Court. The period between the registration of the FIR from 6th April, 2000 till 9th May, 2000 was spent by the petitioner knocking on the doors of various Courts to secure anticipatory bail. The matter was taken upto the Supreme Court. Ultimately when the plea for anticipatory bail was dismissed even by the Supreme Court, the petitioner voluntarily surrendered before the CBI on 9th May, 2000. The petitioner remained in CBI custody from 9th May, 2000 to 18th May, 2000. Shri Baldev Singh submitted that inspite of keeping the petitioner in CBI custody for a period of 9 days, nothing incriminating could be recovered either from the petitioner or from his residence. He further submitted that the petitioner having been suspended from service and having been repatriated to his parent State of Haryana is unlikely to influence the prosecution witnesses. He would also not be in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence. In such circumstances, it would be in the fitness of things to grant the concession of bail to the petitioner. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has relied on a judgment of this Court in Ramesh Sehgal v. State of Haryana, 1997(2) RCR 78. In the aforesaid judgment, this Court observed as under : "10. Case as set up by the State is based upon the complaint filed by Surinder Singh, an exporter of cloth, regarding an alleged deal struck off between the two for extension of parole of a life prisoner on his paying a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as bribe. This precise matter of course is yet to be examined by the Court on the basis of evidence which the parties will lead. The recovery of Rs. 50,000/- has already been made. No further investigation is envisaged as at the outset no police remand had been sought of the petitioner, who is in judicial custody. The only apprehension expressed by the counsel for the State is that petitioner on account of his status is likely to overawe the witnesses and otherwise interfere with the further investigation. Per se I find no substance in the vague allegation. Nothing has been brought on record till today that petitioner has tried to interfere with the investigation of the case. Per se I find no substance in the vague allegation. Nothing has been brought on record till today that petitioner has tried to interfere with the investigation of the case. It has not even been suggested that the petitioner has approached one or the other person (again highly placed officials) who are stated to have attested the recoveries alleged to have been effected from the petitioner. Thus, taking a cumulative view of the matter, especially the fact that the petitioner is in judicial custody, I find no reasonable ground to decline the petitioner the relief of ball pending trial. Accordingly, I accept the petition and order for release of the petitioner subject to his furnishing a bond to the satisfaction of CJM, Ambala." 5. The additional ground submitted by Mr. Baldev Singh is that the petitioner is a heart patient and is in need of specialised medical treatment. Specialised medical treatment would not be available in the Model Jail or any other jail where he may be confined. Consequently, a fervent plea is made that the petitioner be released on bail. Mr. Baldev Singh has further placed strong reliance on the fact that although the report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. has been submitted by the prosecution yet complete documents have not been supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner has made an application for the supply of the documents but the same are not being supplied to him. The learned counsel further submits that the prosecution has cited over 68 witnesses to be examined by it. In view of the above, the trial is likely to take a considerable period of time. Therefore, it would be a fit case to release the petitioner on bail. 6. Mr. Rajan Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the CBI has pointed to a number of statements which were recorded of the persons at the instance of whom the FIR has been registered. These persons have given statements in support of the allegations (i) to (ix) which have been reproduced above. The learned counsel has read out the relevant portion of the statements where it is categorically stated that the petitioner has been using his official position as well as allurement of money to win over the prosecution witnesses. These persons have given statements in support of the allegations (i) to (ix) which have been reproduced above. The learned counsel has read out the relevant portion of the statements where it is categorically stated that the petitioner has been using his official position as well as allurement of money to win over the prosecution witnesses. The learned counsel submitted that if the petitioner is now permitted to be released on bail, he is without doubt going to make every effort to influence the witnesses. 7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the parties, I am of the considered opinion that in this case, bail cannot be granted to the petitioner. It must be remembered that the petitioner was holding a high ranking position within the hierarchy of the Union Territory. He was holding the position of trust not only in relation to the Union Territory but also on behalf of the general Public. A perusal of the allegations, taken at their face value, prima facie is sufficient to show that the petitioner misused his official authority to grant undue favour to a number of persons in consideration of illegal gratification. Coupled with these, are the circumstances that prior to the registration of the case on 6th April, 2000, the petitioner had already made efforts to persuade the complainants to withdraw their complaints in February, 2000 and onwards. Merely because, in some cases the petitioner has approached the complainants through his co- accused would not alter the net effect that the petitioner has been trying to subvert the course of justice. The statements read out by Mr. Rajan Gupta indicate that the petitioner has tried a number of methods to win over the witnesses. Some have been offered money, others have been threatened. All the witnesses are not of high status and would be amenable to pressure. In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the reliance on the judgment of this court in the case of Ramesh Sehgal (supra) is wholly misconceived. A perusal of the observations made by this Court in Ramesh Sehgals case (supra) would show that it was demonstrated to the Court that the case had been registered at the instance of his alleged rival in service. A perusal of the observations made by this Court in Ramesh Sehgals case (supra) would show that it was demonstrated to the Court that the case had been registered at the instance of his alleged rival in service. It was said that V.N. Negi, a senior functionary of the Police, had been nursing a grudge against the petitioner, who had been appointed Director General of Police. Furthermore, that was a case of single incident and no material was placed on the record to show that the petitioner therein had tried to influence the witnesses. In that case, it was observed by this Court that the allegations made about influencing the witnesses were wholly vague. All the witnesses were of high status who could not be won over. 8. With regard to the submissions made by Baldev Singh to the effect that the petitioner deserves to be released on bail on account of his illness, all that needs to be observed is that if and when there is any requirement for medical treatment, necessary application could be made to the authorities for making appropriate arrangements for the treatment, if found necessary. 9. In these circumstances, I find no merit in this petition. The same is dismissed. No costs.