ORDER R.R. Prasad, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and learned Counsel appearing for the CBI on the matter of bail. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been convicted for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Sections 465, 477-A and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and was awarded maximum sentence for six years for one of the offences on the allegation that the appellant while was posted as General Manager in cattle farm, Hotwar from 1.12.1994 to 30.4.1995 passed invoices for payment and had issued supply orders on the basis of forged allotment letters but the Investigating Officer (PW 117) has admitted in his cross-examination that no forged allotment letters had been issued during the tenure of the appellant and as such the appellant had no knowledge about any forged allotment letter and that the appellant had only counter-signed the bills which, in the facts sand circumstances, never go to show the culpability of the appellant. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant further submitted that moreover for the same charges the appellant was put to trial in other case where the appellant has been convicted and therefore, any order of conviction and sentence with respect to the same charges is quite illegal. 4. It was also submitted that the appellant being quite old has been suffering from so many diseases such as Diabetic, Hypertension, Prostate Cancer and also suffering from Kidney problem and therefore, this Court at one point of time had even granted provisional bail to the appellant for the treatment of the diseases and as such, the appellant needs to lead restricted life which is not possible in the jail and hence, the appellant be admitted on bail. 5. 5. As against this, learned Counsel appearing for the CBI submitted that there has been evidences that the appellant while was posted as General Manager at Cattle farm, Hotwar had passed invoices for payment to the suppliers though the suppliers did not supply the materials and that the appellant had issued supply orders to the same suppliers in piecemeal fully knowing that allotment letters received in the office are fake and all these circumstances go to show that this appellant in connivance with other accused made payment to the suppliers but, in fact, materials had not been supplied. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the CBI further submitted that this Court had earlier granted provisional bail taking into consideration that the appellant needs treatment for the ailment which he was suffering from but when the appellant got cured, prayer for extension of the provisional bail was refused but while refusing such prayer, the Court has given liberty to the appellant to move this Court whenever there would be necessity of having any kind of treatment or further check-up. 7. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the appellant. Hence, the prayer for bail of the appellant is rejected. However, the appellant would be at liberty to move for bail after serving half of the sentence of the maximum sentence imposed by the trial Court, if the appeal is not taken up before that. 8. The aforesaid I.A. stands disposed of. Appeal disposed of.