Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner prays for anticipatory bail in a case registered for offences u/s. 13(2) read with Sec. 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. From the charge sheet filed in the case, it appears that the petitioner has been charged with possessing disproportionate assets to the extent of Rs. 61,45,072.00. The total assets of the petitioner have been taken at Rs. 1,07,41,009.00 and after excluding the assets at the beginning of the check period an income amounting to Rs. 1,58,400.00, and income during the check period of Rs. 47,16,846.00, the aforesaid disproportionate assets of about Rs. 61 lacs is stated to be possessed by him. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the valuation of the house constructed at the Bazar Samiti is over-valued. The same has been done on the basis of cost index method of valuation which is not a scientific and practical method of valuation. It is submitted that the said methodology has high degree of error approximately about 40%. In this regard, the petitioner has cited several examples in his petition to show that the said methodology is used only for making preliminary estimate for getting sanction on the basis of cost index method and final assets actually paid after construction by the Government Departments concerned is less by 35-40%. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the valuation of household items has wrongly been done as more than Rupees ten lacs treating it entirely within check period where the same has been accumulated during the course of long period of service under various Government organizations as well as the period while he was running a coaching Institute. It is submitted that prior to joining the B.S.N.L. in the year 1993 he had worked in the Bharat Electrical Limited and in the Central Water Commission from June, 1987 to June, 1991 and in course of that period substantial amount had been saved by him. Another submission of learned counsel is that an amount of Rs. 8 lacs was due to his creditors for having supplied various goods for the purpose of construction of his house, for which purpose, he has filed various documents in the supplementary affidavit. Another submission of learned counsel is that an amount of Rs. 8 lacs was due to his creditors for having supplied various goods for the purpose of construction of his house, for which purpose, he has filed various documents in the supplementary affidavit. Learned counsel submits that if all these matters are taken into consideration then his assets would come within 10% variation range, which is permissible as per law applicable in this matter. 6. Learned counsel for the C.B.I. sought to argue that the valuation is based upon the guidelines for valuation of immovable properties issued by the Central Public Works department and thus, it cannot be said that there has been any over valuation of the properties by the C.B.I. Learned counsel also shows various documents by which the valuation has been done. 7. This Court for the purpose of anticipatory bail is not inclined to enter into such aspect of the matter since the same pertains to the stage of trial. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the petitioner (Sanjay Kumar Sharma) in the event of his arrest/surrender within four weeks from today, shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000.00 with two sureties of the like amount each in connection with Special Case No. 17 of 2005, arising out of R.C. No. 14A/05 to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, C.B.I., South Bihar, Patna, subject to the conditions laid down u/s. 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.