JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - This is the second Bail Application filed by the Petitioner. The Petitioner along with his co-accused is alleged to have committed offence under Sections 302/120-B/34, Indian Penal Code and under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. His earlier bail Application had been disposed of by this Court on 16th December, 2005 with an observation that an investigation was still in progress releasing the Petitioner on bail at that stage would create hindrance in the smooth investigation. This Court had directed the prosecution to complete the investigation as early as possible and submit the final form within the time stipulated under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Liberty was also granted to the Petitioner to move for bail afresh. In consonance with the said observation the prosecution has submitted charge-sheet against the Petitioner, but then it has prayed to permit it to keep the investigation open in consonance with the provision of Section 173(8), Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that some of the materials like diaries disclosing the names of different persons involved in tender Fixing, revolvers and other weapons, etc. which were seized outside the State have not yet come to the hands of Crime branch and the legal formalities are continuing. After submission of charge-sheet the Petitioner once again moved the Sessions Court and the Learned Sessions Judge of Bhubaneswar by a reasoned order having rejected the prayer of the Petitioner for bail, the Petitioner is before this Court once again. 2. In its earlier judgment delivered on 16th December, 2005, this Court had elaborately dealt with the facts of the case against the Petitioner, different statements recorded during investigation, the modus operandi adopted by the Petitioner in connivance with other co-accused for eliminating the two deceased who appeared to have become threat tot he Petitioner, his co-accused, other contractor friends and Anil Chhotray (main accused). Without dilating the said facts, it would suffice to say that prima facie materials are available to show that a syndicate of the Petitioner, his co-accused and some other contractors vis-a-vis Anil Chhotray, a hardened criminal, was operating for the purpose of monopolizing the entire Tender Empire of the State, causing huge loss to the public exchequer and earning fabulous profit for themselves. The job of Anil Chhotray was to terrorise other prospective contractors intending to compete with the Petitioner and other members of the syndicate and prevent them from filling tenders by threatening to eliminate them if they did not succumb to the threat. 3. It is alleged, by efflux of time, the two deceased, namely, Rubu alias Subash Chandra das and Dhiren Kumar Sethi, tried to intrude upon the racket of Tender Fixing and became a cheat to the monopoly of the Petitioner and aforesaid persons. According to the prosecution, the latter therefore hatched a conspiracy with Anil Chhotray at Hotel Crown, Bhubaneswar to eliminate Rubu and Dhiren and in fact successfully eliminated the said two by murdering them near the Prachi Division Executive Engineer's Office, Bhubaneswar in the heart of capital of Orissa on 18th April, 2005 in broad daylight. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner forcefully submitted that there is no iota of evidence connecting the Petitioner with the alleged crime. He further submitted that the Petitioner is respectable citizen. He is also one of the highest tax-payers of the State and only on suspicion he cannot be kept behind the bars. Even, it is submitted that the so-called materials collected and relied upon by the investigating agency are all created documents, aimed at fulfilling the vendetta of the prosecution and some persons interested. 5. Mr. pradhan, Learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State, at the other hand, repudiated the submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and submitted that there cannot be any direct evidence as to conspiracy, but then the materials collected so far by the investigating agency lead to a chain of events and point at the involvement of the Petitioner and the aforesaid persons and reveal that they had hands in glove with Anil Chhotray, and that at their behest and instigation Anil Chhotray got Rubu and Dhiren murdered. 6. I have heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length, in order to examine the propriety of the arguments advanced. I went through the materials collected by the prosecution available in the Case diary which was produced before this Court. 6. I have heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length, in order to examine the propriety of the arguments advanced. I went through the materials collected by the prosecution available in the Case diary which was produced before this Court. It is revealed from the statements recorded u/s 161, Code of Criminal Procedure of Anil Kumar Chowdhury, Birat Chandra Dagara, Bibhu Bhusan Routray, Pramod Harichandan and Rasbehari Narendra who are some of Super Class Contractors or Special Class Contractors that they had been threatened, coerced and warned not to submit tenders in respect of certain works for which either the Petitioner and his aforesaid associate contractors had submitted. They have also stated as to how they were threatened by either phone-calls and/or in person. There are also instances of hurling bombs at their houses or place of business to terrorise them. 7. According to Mr. Pradhan, the diaries seized from Anil Chhotray's residence have nothings with regard to remuneration received by him to keep other contractors out of the arena of competition. 8. The statements of Niranjan Rath, Biranchi Das, Tapan Kumar Swain and Rajkishore Pradhan who were friends or otherwise known to Rubu and Dhiren reveal that a few days prior to their murder. Rubu and Dhiren, had stated before them that they were anticipating danger to their life being threatened by and on behalf of the Petitioner and the aforesaid persons. The two deceased alleged to have also specifically stated before them that Anil Chhotray had threatened to kill them at the behest of the Petitioner and his associates. These statements, according to Mr. Pradhan, may amount to dying declaration u/s 32(1) of the Evidence Act. 9. The statements of one Nilendra Kumar Rout and Sarat Chandra Sahoo also throw some light with regard to meeting convened at Hotel Crown where the Petitioner, his co-accused and Anil Chhotray said to have hatched the conspiracy to perpetrate the action executed. 10. The statement of Anil Chhotray recorded by the Crime Branch also reveals that the Petitioner and his co-accused had conspired with him and a unanimous decision was taken between them inter se to eliminate Rubu and Dhiren and that job was entrusted to him. It also appears that huge amount of money had been seized apart from diaries and weapons from Anil Chhotray. It also appears that huge amount of money had been seized apart from diaries and weapons from Anil Chhotray. The Case Diary also contains the statement of the Petitioner and the statements of his co-accused admitting their unholy nexus with Anil Chhotray and about payment of huge money to him for Tender Fixing. 11. The Petitioner and his co-accused contractors are very wealthy and influential persons. In course of argument it was also highlighted by their counsel that they are among the highest tax-payers of the State. Materials available in the case Diary and other events reveal that they are always eager to utilize their money power and influence to get the things done by hook or crook according to their desire. Such attitude is a threat to the society. There are probabilities that the Petitioner and his co-accused can go to any extent to ward off any hurdle in their way and release of the Petitioner on bail pending trial may cause serious dent. That apart, from the materials available in the Case Diary this Court is able to see some force in the contention of the State Counsel that in a case like this if the Petitioner is bailed out, there is every apprehension of the evidence being tampered with. In such circumstances this Court is of the view that though charge-sheet has been filed in the case, it is not a fit case for grant of bail to the Petitioner. 12. In course of argument, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the health of the Petitioner has very much deteriorated and he is suffering from "Malena" (occult blood in stool). It appears that as his condition became serious, he had to be admitted at the Capital hospital at Bhubaneswar. This Court had directed the State Counsel to obtain instruction in the matter from the concerned authorities. The report submitted by the Superintendent of Police was produced before this Court which reveals that the Petitioner is ill and as his health condition deteriorated as per the advise of the Medicine Specialist of the Capital Hospital he was admitted in the said Hospital and at present he is an indoor patient there. It further reveals that the Petitioner has been given blood transfusion and other medicines and his hemoglobin percentage constantly came down in spite of blood transfusion. It further reveals that the Petitioner has been given blood transfusion and other medicines and his hemoglobin percentage constantly came down in spite of blood transfusion. As his condition did not improve, the Gastroenterologist of the SCB Medical College-Hospital, Cuttack on requisition examined him and opined that the Petitioner was suffering from 'gastroenteric ulcer with duodenal scar, as partially healed ulcer and one bleeding vessel'. Considering such acute health condition of the Petitioner who is now an indoor patient at the Capital Hospital, this Court feels it just and proper on humanitarian consideration to release him on interim bail. 13. This Court, therefore, directs that the Petitioner be released on interim bail on his furnishing a cash security of Rs. 1,00,000.00 (One lakh) or bank guarantee for the like amount and executing a bond for Rs. 1,00,000.00 (one lakh) with two local sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the SDJM, Bhubaneswar in G.R. Case No. 1301 of 2005, with conditions that he shall not indulge in any criminal activity, shall not threaten, coerce or try to influence any prosecution witness, shall make himself available for interrogation by the investigating agency as and when required and shall not travel beyond the State of Orissa without obtaining prior permission of this Court. The Petitioner shall continue on interim bail for a period of eight weeks or until completion of investigation and filling of final/further charge-sheet, if any, whichever is later. The period of interim bail shall not be extended thereafter. 14. The Bail Application is accordingly disposed of. Bail Application disposed of.