Order Heard Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant-Kamlesh Kumar Singh alias Kamlesh Singh and Mr. Md. Mokhtar Khan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short "C.B.I."). 2. This is an application for grant of regular bail in connection with R.C. Case No. 5(A)/2010/AHD/Ranchi corresponding to Vigilance P.S. Case No.9 of 2009 and Special Case No. 13 of 2009 for the offence under Sections 409, 420, 423, 424, 465 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 7/10/11/13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. At the very outset, it was brought to my notice that the applicant is in jail since November, 2009. Bail application being B.A, No. 2119 of 2010 was moved earlier which was rejected vide order dated 2nd July, 2010 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amareshwar Sahay. This is the second bail application. 4. I have perused the first order. At the relevant time, when the first bail application was moved, the matter was being investigated by the Vigilance but subsequently investigation has been transferred to the C.B.I. 5. The facts giving rise to this bail application are that one Rajiv Sharma preferred a complaint/application vide Complaint. Case No.1 of 2009 on 20th January, 2009 before the Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi against four persons, namely, Shri Madhu Koda, the then Chief Minister the present applicant-Kamlesh Singh who was Minister, Water Resources, Excise and Food Supply Department, Jharkhand with effect from February, 2005. The other two accused are Shri Bhanu Pratap Sahi who was Health Minister and Shri Bandhu Tirkey, Minister of Human Resource Development Department. The two accused mentioned in the complaint, namely, Bhanu Pratap Sahi and Shri Bandhu Tirkey have not been taken into custody till date and they are sitting M.L.As. 6. The proceedings commenced on the complaint/application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Investigation of the case commenced after its institution and was conducted by the Vigilance police station. First information report was registered on 2nd July, 2009 vide Vigilance P.S. Case NO.9 of 2009. 7. The main allegation against the petitioner is that at the time when he contested the election from Hussainabad Constituency, for the first time, he had disclosed his assets to be 'in lacs', but for the second time, the assets escalated to multi-crores. First information report was registered on 2nd July, 2009 vide Vigilance P.S. Case NO.9 of 2009. 7. The main allegation against the petitioner is that at the time when he contested the election from Hussainabad Constituency, for the first time, he had disclosed his assets to be 'in lacs', but for the second time, the assets escalated to multi-crores. In the circumstances, this fact was also brought to the notice of this Court by means of a public interest litigation being P.I.L. No. 4700 of 2008 alleging that the four accused mentioned aforesaid alongwith one Enos Ekka and Hari Narayan Rai who were also arrested. 8. Mr. Md. Mokhtar Khan, learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I. has impressed that the High Court was monitoring in the P.I.L., the cases instituted against these persons including the applicant. The Vigilance Department lodged a first information report against Shri Enos Ekka and Shri Hari Narayan Rai and they were arrested and charge-sheet was submitted during the pendency of the P.I.L. In sum and substance, the allegation against the present applicant is that he had siphoned huge amount of money of the public, misused the position as Minister which has led to heavy loss on the State exchequer. 9. Mr. Giri, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner tried to emphasise that similar allegations were levelled against the two other accused, namely, Shri Bhanu Pratap Sahi and Shri Bandhu Tirkey, but no attempt has been made to take them in custody. On the contrary, they have been permitted to contest the assembly election and they are enjoying the fruits as sitting M.L.As. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the Vigilance submitted charge-sheet on the 90th day and thereafter investigation was transferred and the C.B.I. claims that investigation is not complete. It is further argued that institution of the entire criminal prosecution is politically motivated. It was only on the date when the petitioner was going to file his nomination from Hussainabad Assembly constituency on 1st December, 2009 which was published in the media, the investigating agency took him in custody on 30th November, 2009 i.e. a day prior to filing of his nomination. The applicant was brought to Ranchi and since then the applicant is languishing in jail. 10. The applicant was brought to Ranchi and since then the applicant is languishing in jail. 10. Learned counsel has submitted that the Special Judge should have taken cognizance and proceeded with the trial and since this has not been done, the C.B.I. still claims to be continuing with the investigation. The detention of the petitioner under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is ipso facto rendered illegal The investigation was transferred to the C.B.I. on a direction of this Court in P.I.L. only vide order dated 4.8.2010. Several instances have been pointed out by the counsel for the C.B.I. that assets of the applicant is disproportionate. He has spent crores and crores of rupees in the marriage of his daughter. Barat has come by chartered plane. He has given gift to his son-in-law worth rupees five crores. His son is studying at Australia. Besides number of other facts was brought to my notice by pointing out from the copy of the complaint in which the allegation against the present applicant Kamlesh Singh is detailed in paragraph 3 of the complaint. The specific allegations in the complaint are as detailed hereinbelow:- (a) He has committed embezzlement with crores of rupees in a pipe supply scam wherein the rate of pipe per meter was available in open market @ of Rs. 70/- per meter whereas he finalized and purchased the pipe @ Rs.122/- per meter for the Government. (b) This accused Shri Kamlesh Singh has also supplied the said pipes for opening his company in his home District, namely, Hussainabad. (c) The accused no. 2, Sri Kamlesh Singh is also involved in Iodized supply scam. (d) This accused has purchased landed property in almost all the police station of Ranchi District which if investigated would come to fore. He has also purchased houses at Mumbai, Delhi and Bangalore. (e) He has a number of luxurious vehicles, which includes Endeavor and Safari etc. (f) He has purchased land in the name of his brother and his wife (Smt. Madhu Singh) as also in the name of his daughters, namely, Ragani Singh and Ambika Singh, the value of which would come to at least 50 crores. (g) This accused has married his daughter recently to the son of Hon'ble Minister of Maharashtra Sri Kripa Shankar Singh. (g) This accused has married his daughter recently to the son of Hon'ble Minister of Maharashtra Sri Kripa Shankar Singh. This marriage is said to be the most expensive marriage in the history of Ranchi/Jharkhand which' was attended by the persons who came in 6 specially hired chartered plane. This accused gave gifts to his son-in-law of an estimated cost of rupees not less than 5 crores. 11. Mr. Mokhtar Khan, counsel for the C.B.I. stated that investigation of the C.B.I. is at a preliminary stage since the investigation was transferred only in the month of August, 2010 and simultaneously he stated that many other new facts have come to light during course of investigation and, therefore, he wanted to place the case diary and the further investigation by the C.B.I. 12. Mr. Giri pointed out paragraphs 38, 39, 40 and 56 of the bail application in support of his argument that the applicant has all along cooperated in the investigation when it was carried out by the Vigilance Department and also pointed out the charge-sheet which has been submitted by the said department. The relevant extract of the charge-sheet has been placed before me that the applicant's net income was Rs. 1,03,66,448/- and therefore, apparently an amount of Rs.1,75,15,918/- remains unexplained. However, the C.B.I. disputed this figure and said that the bungling is manifolds, more than what has been mentioned in the charge-sheet submitted by the Vigilance. 13. I have given a careful consideration to the documentary evidence and to the argument of the respective counsel. Evidently the case falls within the ambit of Prevention of Corruption Act and certain provisions of the Indian Penal Code, namely, 420, 467, 468, 470, 471 and the applicant has already remamed in jail since last one year. Investigation is still continuing. In these circumstances, it is evident that the liberty of the applicant has been curtailed for a considerable period. He is neither a terrorist nor committed any heinous crime. 14. No doubt misuse of public money of such high valuation cannot be said to be small offence, but at the same time, it does not require detention for a very very long time if the prosecution chooses to take its own sweet time to complete the investigation. He is neither a terrorist nor committed any heinous crime. 14. No doubt misuse of public money of such high valuation cannot be said to be small offence, but at the same time, it does not require detention for a very very long time if the prosecution chooses to take its own sweet time to complete the investigation. Learned counsel has cited a decision of the Aoex Court in Laloo Prasad alias Laloo Prasad Yadav with Jagannath Mishra vs. State of Jharkhand [(2002)9 Supreme Court Cases 372] [:s2002(1) JLJR (SC)104], paragraphs 6 and 7 reads as under:- "6. As the appellants were already in jail for more than six months in connection with cases arising out of Bihar Fodder Scam a plea was made that the benefit granted to the other accused involved in the same case may be granted to these persons also. From 8.5.2001 onwards various accused involved in Bihar Fodder Scam cases were being released on bail by orders of this Court, if such accused had already been in jail for about six months. This Court did not reject the bail application in respect of any "One of the accused arraigned. in these series of cases who had remained in jail for six months and above merely on the ground that another offshoot case of the main conspiracy has since been registered or even charge-sheeted against him. 7. The most serious of the offences now pitted against the petitioner is Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act punishable with a maximum sentence of imprisonment for seven years. Having considered the merits of the case including the fact that the petitioners were in jail for a period of more than six months by now (which partly includes the pre-trial detention in other connected cases also) we do not think that further detention of them as pre-trial prisoners would be of any necessity in this case." 15. Besides this, it is also pointed out that the applicant is seriously ill and the medical reports have also been appended to the bail application in support of the argument that he has been referred to AIIMS for treatment or any other in good hospitals at Delhi or Mumbai. Those documents have not been disputed. It is also brought to my notice that he is still in hospital, but proper treatment is not being given to him. 16. Those documents have not been disputed. It is also brought to my notice that he is still in hospital, but proper treatment is not being given to him. 16. In the facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that any further detention of the applicant is uncalled for. Further investigation is continued by the C.B.I., it shall continue and the applicant will have to cooperate with the C.B.I. It is not a case where security of the State would be threatened in case he is enlarged on bail or there are chances of him committing any further embezzlement since he is out of office and, therefore, considering the principle that jail is exception and bail is rule. 17. The Court has to consider before granting bail in a non-bailable offence, nature of the offence, character of the evidence, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, a reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused whether could be secured at the time of trial and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with. Larger interest of the public or the State is also one of the paramount consideration. 18. In the instant case, the prosecution clearly has come up against a person who was a sitting Minister and, according to the prosecution itself, he has sufficient property, be it non-accountable, but yet likelihood of his absconding is scarce. Evidently he is a man of sixty years and has a frail health as described in the bail application which is not specifically disputed by the prosecution. The Vigilance has evidently examined all the witnesses. The remaining witnesses which the C.B.I. claims to be examining or collecting evidence cannot be visualised to be of a nature which would be within the reach of the applicant and, in the circumstances, the likelihood of tampering with the evidence is also very bleak. I am also conscious of the fact that at the stage of bail, the Court is not required to discuss threadbare and analyse the evidence furnished by the prosecution or collected during investigation in the case diary. This exercise is only done after the witnesses have been examined during trial. 19. I am also conscious of the fact that at the stage of bail, the Court is not required to discuss threadbare and analyse the evidence furnished by the prosecution or collected during investigation in the case diary. This exercise is only done after the witnesses have been examined during trial. 19. In view of all this what has been stated above, the applicant deserves bail, especially he has been in custody since more than one year and any further detention on account of the C.B.I. claiming that the investigation is at a preliminary stage, I cannot overlook that Vigilance has already submitted the charge-sheet. The C.B.I. has admitted that investigation was handed over in the month of August, 2010, more than three months have already lapsed, the Code of Criminal Procedure also provides that investigating agency is liable to complete the investigation at the maximum in 90 days, in the event accused is in jail. The cumulative assessment of all these aspects, provisions of law, facts and circumstances and physical condition of the accused, it is a fit case where he should be enlarged on bail. 20. The applicant, in the circumstances, is liable to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 50,000/(Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi in connection with R.C. Case No.5(A)/2010/AHD/Ranchi corresponding to Vigilance P.S. Case No.9 of 2009 and Special Case No. 13 of 2009 on the following condition : (a) the applicant shall not directly or indirectly or through others make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the court or to any other authority; (b) the applicant shall remain present before the court on the dates fixed for hearing of the case. If he wants to remain absent then he shall take prior permission of the court and in case of unavoidable circumstances for remaining absent he shall immediately give intimation to the appropriate court (AHD) and also to the Superintendent, CBI and request that he may be permitted to be present through his counsel; (c) the applicant shall•• not leave the country till the trial is complete. In the event of emergency, only after prior permission of the Court; (d) the applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, (if not already surrendered) and in case he is not a holder of the same he shall swear to an affidavit. If he has already surrendered before the designated court, that fact should also be supported by an affidavit; (e) the applicant shall not give for publicity his comments or opinion on the merits of the case pending against him, except when he is required to state it in the court concerned.