JUDGMENT Amar Dutt, J. - This order will dispose of Criminal Misc. Nos. 22368-M, 23981-M and 28425-M of 2000 filed by Anurag Gupta, Dr. Sodhi Ram and Dhan Singh respectively. 2. The case No. RC-27/98-CHG against the petitioners was registered by the C.B.I. on 21.7.1998 on a complaint sent by Shri M.M. Puri, Vice Chancellor, Panjab University, Chandigarh on 10.6.1998, when a report was received by him from a two-member Committee set up by him, consisting of Prof. IBS Passi, the then Dean University (Instruction) and Prof. Dina Nath Johar from the Department of Law to enquire into a report appearing in the Chandigarh Newsline of Indian Express dated 26.5.1998 regarding leakage of question papers which were being set by the University for various examinations that were being held by it, to the effect that leakage of question papers had been taking place for the last few years and a regular investigation by an independent agency should be got conducted in relation to this lapse. After a protracted investigation which continued for about two years, the C.B.I. had submitted a charge sheet against Sarvshri Sodhi Ram, Anurag Gupta, Sukhwinder Singh, Dhan Singh and Ashwani Kumar Gupta under Section 120-B read with Section 420, Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. After the filing of the charge sheet, during the pendency of these bail applications, the trial Court has framed charges against the petitioners under Section 120-B read with Section 420, Indian Penal Code and dropped the charges that the C.B.I. was asking to be framed against the petitioners under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 3. Bail applications have been filed by Anurag Gupta, Dr. Sodhi Ram and Dhan Singh asserting that no admissible evidence has been collected which would prove that the petitioners were responsible for leakage of questions papers as the statements of the petitioners which were recorded under Section 161, Criminal Procedure Code during investigation would be inadmissible and could not be used in evidence against them. According to them, the statements of Dhan Singh and Amritpal Singh recorded before the police during the investigation about how the leakage took place and who all were responsible thereof would not be admissible either against Dhan Singh or his co-accused. According to them, the statements of Dhan Singh and Amritpal Singh recorded before the police during the investigation about how the leakage took place and who all were responsible thereof would not be admissible either against Dhan Singh or his co-accused. Similarly, the presence of a letter written by Amritpal to the D.U.I. after it was marked to the Controller of Examinations i.e. Dr. Sodhi Ram and its ultimate recovery from the drawer of Dr. Sodhi Ram would be of no assistance to prove the case of the prosecution against the accused. There is, even according to the C.B.I., various stages at which the leakage could have taken place and the material relied upon by the investigation agency for ruling out the possibility of the leakage of paper having taken place at any other stage than the office of the Controller of Examinations is too weak to be made the basis of returning any firm finding against the petitioners. The fact that no evidence has been collected as to how the leakage has taken place as also who all were involved prior to 1998 is indicative of the mala fide with which the investigation has been conducted. It was also submitted that the statements of 12 beneficiaries which are stated to be relied upon for bringing home of the charge against the accused would be of no assistance unless some of them are made approvers in the case. In view of this as also the circumstance that the Senate of the Panjab University had refused to grant sanction for the prosecution of Dr. Sodhi Ram, the case sought to be built up against the petitioners is very weak and should not be made the basis of the continued detention of the petitioners. It was also submitted that even if the allegations which have been made out against the petitioners are accepted to be correct, there is no material on the basis of which a charge under Section 120-B read with Section 420, Indian Penal Code could be supported. 4. On behalf of the C.B.I., it has been urged that since case against the petitioners has serious ramification on the reputation of a premier educational institution, the necessity of detaining the petitioners till the statement of the students who have made statements against them throwing light on their complicity cannot be dismissed. 4. On behalf of the C.B.I., it has been urged that since case against the petitioners has serious ramification on the reputation of a premier educational institution, the necessity of detaining the petitioners till the statement of the students who have made statements against them throwing light on their complicity cannot be dismissed. The State in the present case is dealing with an influential academician who even during the time when the investigation of the case was conducted was able to get himself confirmed as the Controller of Examinations and would, therefore, be able to influence the students into resiling from the statements made by them during the course of investigation. It was also submitted that the influence of Dr. Sodhi Ram is further highlighted by the fact that by appearing before the Senate he has been able to get rejected the application by the Independent Agency for sanction of his prosecution. In these circumstances, since the trial has already commenced, the interest of justice required that the petitioners applications for bail should be rejected till the time the statements of the students who have dared to make a clean breast of their guilt are recorded. Regarding the last submission, which has been put forth as a basis for grant of bail, it is submitted that this Court while entertaining an application under Section 439, Criminal Procedure Code would refrain from going into the question of whether the charge in the present case has been properly framed or not, especially when Criminal Revision Nos. 1210 and 1293 of 2000 have already been filed by Dr. Sodhi Ram and Dhan Singh respectively to challenge this order of the trial Court. 5. I have heard Sarvshri S.S. Saron, R.C. Cheema, Senior Advocate assisted by Matvinder Singh and Amar Vivek, Advocates for the petitioners and Shri Rajan Gupta, Advocate appearing for the C.B.I. 6. In the present applications for bail, relief is being sought on behalf of the petitioners primarily on the ground that even if the result of the investigation is accepted to be correct, then too no case is made out under Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code read with Section 420, Indian Penal Code. In the present applications for bail, relief is being sought on behalf of the petitioners primarily on the ground that even if the result of the investigation is accepted to be correct, then too no case is made out under Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code read with Section 420, Indian Penal Code. Ordinarily, while dealing with an application under Section 439, Criminal Procedure Code a Court may be persuaded to deal with the merits of such a submission with a view to determine the strength of the charges which the petitioner were called to answer, this may to some extent even affect the decision of the bail application though normally, it might both be advisable to dwell on the merits lest any opinion expressed prejudices the case of either parties. In the present case, however, the question of this Courts dealing with the strength and infirmities of the prosecution case does not arise because Criminal Revision Nos. 1210 and 1293 of 2000 have admittedly been filed to assail the order passed by the Special Judge, Chandigarh on 1.9.2000 directing that charge be framed against the accused under Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code read with Section 420, Indian Penal Code, in which stay of further proceedings has been granted. In view of this, it would not be appropriate to comment upon the arguments regarding the strength and weakness of the case built up by the C.B.I. against the petitioners because that will have to be gone into by this Court while disposing of the revision petitions filed against the framing of the charges. In these circumstances, the present petitions will have to be disposed of only by adverting to the general principles. While doing so, the Court will have to bear in mind amongst other things as to whether the petitioners would surrender to custody as and when required; whether they are likely to commit any offence while on bail; whether with a view to strengthen their case, they are likely to coerce or otherwise try to influence the witnesses and thereby obstructs the course of justice; and whether they would mis-use the concession of bail by delaying the trial. The Court will also have to bear in mind the fact that this Court had in two revisions filed against the framing of the charges stayed the proceedings before the trial Court and so it may not be possible for this court to direct at this stage that the trial should be completed within a particular time frame. In this view of the matter, when the period for which the trial may last cannot be anticipated, it becomes necessary to examine whether some protection can be devised to set at rest the apprehension evinced by the Independent Agency about the powers of the petitioners to influence the witnesses of the prosecution. These apprehensions, it seems, emanate from the fact that the request of the C.B.I. for grant of permission to prosecute Dr. Sodhi Ram under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act has been rejected by the Senate of the Panjab University as also the possibility of Dr. Sodhi Ram while working as Controller of Examinations being able to pressurise some of the witnesses, namely, Sarvshri Amritpal Singh, Jaswinder Singh, Harpreet Singh and Varun Verma, who are still completing their studies in the Panjab University into resiling from the stand taken by them before the Independent Agency. 7. With regard to the first, there is no absolute rejection of the request and the C.B.I. has been asked to furnish more material in support of their request so as to satisfy the Senate with regard to the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act having been committed by Dr. Sodhi Ram. With regard to the second, the same is based on an imponderable inasmuch as it presumes that once Dr. Sodhi Ram is released on bail he would be required to work as the Controller of Examinations, which post would enable him to influence the future of some of the students who are still appearing in the examinations, which are being conducted by the Panjab University. It may also enable the other petitioners to coerce or otherwise influence the witnesses. Ordinarily, this Court might not have been inclined to grant bail in this case but since it would not be possible for me to grant any directions regarding the completion of the trial in view of the orders passed in Criminal Revision Nos. It may also enable the other petitioners to coerce or otherwise influence the witnesses. Ordinarily, this Court might not have been inclined to grant bail in this case but since it would not be possible for me to grant any directions regarding the completion of the trial in view of the orders passed in Criminal Revision Nos. 1210 and 1293 of 2000, the rejection of the bail may result in hardship to the petitioner, especially when the interest of the Independent Agency can be protected by incorporating certain directions which place such restrictions on the petitioners as would prevent them from approaching any of the witnesses or in any way trying to influence them or their careers and restricting the same till such time as the trial commences. 8. For the reasons recorded above, these petitions are allowed and it is directed that the petitioners would be admitted to interim bail till the commencement of the trial on their furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court subject to the conditions that none of the petitioners themselves nor any one or their behalf will approach any of the witnesses and make an effort to win them over or induce or coerce or threaten them or otherwise pressurise them into resiling from the statements made by them before the Independent Agency; that they would not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without its prior permission; that they would surrender their passports, if any, before the trial Court; that Dr. Sodhi Ram will not take up the assignment of the Controller of Examinations or any other such assignment which would enable him to exert pressure on Sarvshri Amritpal Singh, Jaswinder Singh, Harpreet Singh and Varun Verma merely on account of his being able to have access to the compilation and finalisation of results; and that they would surrender before the trial Court, as and when the date of the trial is fixed after the decision of the revision petitions. 9. It is, however, clarified that if at any stage the Independent Agency feels that any of the petitioners is not comploying with the above directions, it will be open to it to apply before the trial Court for cancellation of bail. ..