ORDER : Y.K. Sabharwal, J. - Leave granted. 2. These appeals have been filed against refusal of grant of bail to the appellant during the pendency of the case before the learned Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi in Trial Case No. RC 14(A) of 1999(R) registered under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. At the outset, we may notice that the learned Additional Solicitor General has not opposed the appeal and, in our opinion, fairly and very rightly. 3. Ordinarily, this Court is reluctant to interfere in matters where bail has been declined by the trial court and thereafter by the High Court. 4. In the few cases that this Court interferes is where there is a complete miscarriage of justice and the order may shock the conscience of the Court. The present case is of that category. The incident dated 9-12-1999 is the subject-matter of the complaint addressed to the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Ranchi. The appellant has been charged under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The allegation against him is that he demanded a bribe of Rs 470 for issue of coal release order. The appellant was an Upper Division Clerk at the relevant time. The maximum sentence imposable under Section 7 is five years. The appellant is in jail for a period of three years, having been arrested on 11-12-1999. The charge-sheet was filed on 30-12-1999. The trial is still continuing. Mr Raju Ramachandran says that only one prosecution witness is left to be examined. 5. The bail application of the appellant was rejected by the High Court on 13-1-2000. Another bail application was rejected on 8-3-2000 by the High Court. Yet another bail application was filed and that was rejected on 22-8-2000. The trial court was, however, directed to expedite and conclude the trial by taking all effective steps. Another bail application was filed, during the pendency of the trial which was also dismissed on 25-4-2001. By the said order, the trial court was directed to conclude the trial within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 6. Since the case in the trial court still remained pending, another bail application was filed that was again dismissed on 10-12-2001. By the said order, the trial court was directed to conclude the trial within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 6. Since the case in the trial court still remained pending, another bail application was filed that was again dismissed on 10-12-2001. The petitioner after waiting for number of months again moved before the High Court by filing an application seeking bail, that too was rejected on 11-9-2002. This order is impugned before us. 7. The High Court has noticed that apparently the trial court is not serious about the matter and not taking coercive steps to conclude the trial and in spite of directions of the Court, the case is not concluded but has rejected the prayer for bail on the ground that the prayer for bail has been rejected five times earlier. 8. We are surprised at the High Court. The facts have been noticed above. It has to be borne in mind that it is not easy for every person to come to this Court, particularly, challenging the order of this nature. It has become necessary to make these observations because various similar orders have come to our notice rejecting the prayers without going into the facts and circumstances of the case and examining the matter in depth. 9. In the present case, the High Court instead of examining the facts that the maximum punishment was five years and the accused is already in jail for three years, for a bribe of Rs 470 and the directions of the High Court for disposal of trial had not been complied with by the Special Judge, had declined the bail only on the ground that it has been rejected five times earlier. That by itself was not the ground, on these facts, to reject the bail applications filed by the appellant. 10. On the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the impugned order and direct the appellant to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned. 11. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.