JUDGMENT (1) HEARD Mr. Y. V. Giri, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. A. K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel appearing for the State Vigilance. (2) BY filing this application, the petitioner Madhu Koda, who is the Ex-Chief Minister of the State of Jharkhand and is presently in custody, has prayed for grant of bail in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 9/2009, corresponding to Special Case No. 13/2009, registered by the State Vigilance under Sections 409, 420, 423, 424, 465, 120-B, I.P.C. and Sections 7, 10, 11 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. As per the F.I.R., the allegation against the petitioner is that he was elected as M.L.A. in the year 2005 and he held the office of the Minister of Mines and Co-operative in Jharkhand Government from February, 2005 to September, 2006. He became the Chief Minister of the State from September, 2006 and remained as such till August, 2008. At the time of filing his nomination papers for contesting the Assembly Election in the year 2005, he declared the assets possessed by him and by his family members before the Returning Officer. His total assets as declared by him was of Rs. 12,65,615/- (Twelve lakhs, sixty five thousand six hundred fifty only). It is alleged that he surpassed all limits of corruption during the check period, i.e. from February, 2005 to August, 2008. He in collusion and conspiracy with other accused persons, namely, Binod Kumar Sinha, Sunil Kumar Sinha, Sanjay Kumar Choudhary etc., who were his close associates, amassed huge assets movable and immovable during the period of his said office either in his name or in the name of these associates, i.e. Binod Kumar Sinha his brother Sunil Kumar Sinha and Sanjay Kumar Choudhary not only in India but also in different other countries like, Dubai, Thailand, Indonesia, Singapore and Liberia. It is further alleged that Binod Kumar Sinha in collusion and conspiracy with the petitioner got Sri S. K. Satpati, an honest Officer transferred from the post of Secretary of the Department of Mines as in his presence the petitioner could not have allowed to adopt such corrupt practices and embezzlement of the public fund. It is further alleged that the petitioner purchased through Binod Kumar Sinha 0.24 decimals of lands at the cost of Rs. It is further alleged that the petitioner purchased through Binod Kumar Sinha 0.24 decimals of lands at the cost of Rs. 36,00,000/- (Thirty six lakhs), in the name of Sunil Kumar Sinha, the brother of Binod Kumar Sinha. Binod Kumar Sinha with the aid of the petitioner purchased a Rolling Mill at the cost of 13 crores and two flats at Jamshedpur as well as number of luxurious vehicles either in the name of Binod Kumar Sinha or Sunil Kumar Sinha. During the tenure of the petitioner 44 big industrial houses entered into MOUs and thousands of crores of rupees was given to the petitioner as bribe through the middleman Binod Kumar Sinha and Sanjay Kumar Choudhary. Binod Kumar Sinha, with the aid of the petitioner also formed company in Dubai and subsequently, hundreds of crores of rupees was sent through Hawala to Dubai. Binod Kumar Sinha and Sanjay Kumar Choudhary in collusion and connivance with this petitioner purchased/formed/acquired several companies in India as well as in the foreign countries. It is said that the petitioner and Binod Kumar Sinha, Vikash Sinha and Sunil Kumar Sinha purchased 2.14 acres of lands on 21-6-2008 for consideration of Rs. 18,82,000/- (Eighteen lakhs eighty two thousand only). The petitioner also purchased lands in the name of Sunil Kumar Sinha on 24-8-2008 for Rs. 24.88 lakhs. He, with the help of Binod Kumar Sinha, purchased 76 decimals of lands in the name of Binod Kumar Sinha on 4-6-2008 for a consideration of Rs. 38 lakhs. (3) IT is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in course of investigation, no evidence has been collected as yet in order to establish the allegations made in the F.I.R. IT is further submitted that all those allegations, made in the F.I.R. are merely conjecture and surmises and are based only on the basis of the newspapers reports which cannot be believed. IT is further submitted that the charge sheet has already been submitted and from the said charge sheet it appears that a sum of Rs. 1,40,00,000/- (One crores and forty lakhs) have only been found to be disproportionate to the known source of the income of the petitioner and not thousands of crores of rupees as has been made in the FIR. 1,40,00,000/- (One crores and forty lakhs) have only been found to be disproportionate to the known source of the income of the petitioner and not thousands of crores of rupees as has been made in the FIR. Lastly, it is submitted that the petitioner has already been remained in custody for more than seven months and since the charge sheet has already been submitted and, as such, he may be released on bail. (4) MR. Kashyap, learned senior counsel for the State Vigilance submitted that no doubt till the submission of the charge sheet from the materials collected during investigation the petitioner has been found to have acquired assets worth Rs. 1,40,00,000/- (one crore forty lakhs) and odd, which are disproportionate to his known source of income but the investigation is still continuing and Binod Kumar Sinha and Sanjay Kumar Choudhary, close associates of the petitioner, through whom the petitioner said to have amassed huge assets not only in India but in different other countries, are yet to be arrested and interrogated. Having gone through the materials collected during investigation and after considering the submissions made by the respective parties, I find that the allegations against the petitioner, who is the Ex-Minister and Chief Minister of the State is extremely serious in nature in view of the post held by him. May be that till date the prosecution has been able to collect the evidence that the petitioner has acquired the asset worth Rs. 1,40,10,333/ - (One crore forty lakhs ten thousand three hundred thirty three only), which are disproportionate to his known source of income but his case cannot be looked in isolation to that of his associates. The learned Special Judge has rightly rejected the prayer for bail of the petitioner on the ground that further investigation on the points in relations to the offence charged in the case is going on and if the petitioner is released on bail, he may tamper with the evidence. (5) I am also of the view that the petitioner, who is a very influential and political strong person, may try to tamper with the evidence and may cause hindrance in further investigation of the case by using his influence in order to save his skin. (5) I am also of the view that the petitioner, who is a very influential and political strong person, may try to tamper with the evidence and may cause hindrance in further investigation of the case by using his influence in order to save his skin. Therefore, considering the extremely serious nature of the offence and the involvement of the petitioner in the offence alleged, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for bail is rejected. Application dismissed.