JUDGMENT 1. - These three bail applications on behalf of three accused persons have been filed in FIR No. 11212005, registered at Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur for offences under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-6 IPC. 2. In the FIR, it has been alleged that from the reliable sources, it has come in knowledge that Subhash Singh, General Manager, National Agriculture Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. (NAFED), while misusing his post, during the year 2005, collected bribe of Rupees Two crores Fifty Lacs from 52 mill owners @ Rs. 4 lacs each for crushing and processing mustered-seed. It was alleged that during the year 2005, NAFED purchased 12 lacs ton mustered-seed in the month of March-April, 2005 from agriculturists as per price fixed by the Government of India for the State of Rajasthan. The ratio of pure oil and waste (Khal) is determined as 35% : 65% per qt. but in place of it, he fixed 33% pure oil and 67% waste (Khal) per qt. The other allegations about irregularities and illegalities committed by accused Subhash Singh, General Manager with regard to inviting tenders for crushing and processing the mustered-seed were also alleged. The allegations have also been alleged against brokers to give them undue benefits in the said transaction. The allegations were verified by the Anti Corruption Bureau. During verification, it was also found that tenders were passed on a very higher rate than the actual cost only to give benefit to the mill owners as well as brokers. The ratio of pure oil was also reduced from 35% to 33% per qt. During investigation/raid, a sum of Rupees One Crore Twenty Lacs were recovered in cash. Out of this amount, Rs. 50 lacs in cash were recovered from the residence of accused Subhash Singh and Rs. 70 Ins in cash were recovered at the residence of sister of 'accused Subhash Singh. The sister of accused Subhash Singh explained that the amount belongs to his brother Subhash Singh. This fact is mentioned in the case diary. There is also an allegation during verification of the allegations that accused Subhash Singh is also involved in "hawala transaction-. He has sent 50,000 Pounds at London in ICICI Bank through hawala in the name of Rajiv. During verification, the involvement of other accused persons Harnish Jain and Ramesh Chandra was also found. 3. There is also an allegation during verification of the allegations that accused Subhash Singh is also involved in "hawala transaction-. He has sent 50,000 Pounds at London in ICICI Bank through hawala in the name of Rajiv. During verification, the involvement of other accused persons Harnish Jain and Ramesh Chandra was also found. 3. The accused persons were arrested. They moved an application for bail before the Special Judge, Anti Corruption Act Cases, Jaipur. The Special Judge, vide its order dated 27.5.2005, passed a speaking order giving reasons for rejecting their bail applications and evidence against them in the case diary in respect of offence committed by them. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that accused Subhash Singh was not competent to accept tender and he has falsely been implicated in the case. He submits that now he is in judicial custody, therefore, he should be released on bail. For other accused persons also, it has been argued that there is no evidence against them about their involvement, therefore, they should also be released on bail. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor as well as Investigating Officer are present along with the case diary. They opposed the bail applications of the accused persons. The learned Public Prosecutor has read out the evidence available against all the accused persons and prima facie involvement of the accused persons. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the case diary and also the order dated 27.5.2005 passed by the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Jaipur. 7. From the averments made in the FIR and the evidence available in the case diary against the accused persons, it appears that the allegations against the accused persons are of serious nature. There is an allegation about demand and acceptance of illegal gratification to the tune of Rupees Two Crores Fifty Lacs and, during investigation, Rupees On Crore Twenty Lacs were recovered in cash. There is evidence against other accused persons also about their involvement. Therefore, after considering the nature of offence, allegation against the accused persons 35 and gravity of offence, I do not find these cases to be fit one to allow their bail application. Accordingly, all these three bail applications are dismissed.All three bail application rejected. *******