JUDGMENT 1. - This order governs the disposal of second bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by Shri Praveen Balwada, Advocate on behalf of the applicant Mohindar Kumar pertaining to F.I.R. No. 369/2019 of Police Station Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur, registered for the offences under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of I.P.C. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. RP Singh, AAG for the State as also learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that the accused has been in custody since 23.11.2010. Anti Corruption Bureau, after completion of investigation has filed the charge sheet on 11.3.2011 against him, which has been pending trial. Learned counsel further contended that from no stretch of imagination the offences 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act was made out from the material collected by the police during investigation. He has also argued that initially one F.I.R. No. 143/2010 was registered by the Anti Corruption Bureau and thereafter, twenty more F.I.Rs. of similar nature have been registered, which have been created from one F.I.R. No. 143/2010. During investigation, based on the statement of the witnesses. The police deliberately increased the numbers of F.I.Rs. just with a view to evince his entailment in large number of cases of serious nature whereas it is not the case. However, since the trial of the case is likely to take time to conclude and the petitioner has been in custody for the last eight months, hence, in the changed fact situation, he may be granted indulgence of bail to defend his case independently. 4. E-converso, learned Additional Advocate General has vehemently opposed the bail petition contending that in all these four cases, the accomplices are different, the flights are different and the dates of occurrence are also different and that is the reason which led the Anti Corruption Bureau to register the cases separately, albeit, the nature of the offence is similar. The accused has been involved in as many as 20 criminal cases, which are grave and of alike nature, hence, keeping in view the nature of the offences, he should not be admitted to bail. 5. The accused has been involved in as many as 20 criminal cases, which are grave and of alike nature, hence, keeping in view the nature of the offences, he should not be admitted to bail. 5. Having considered the submissions made at the bar and carefully perused the entire material on record, I, under the changed fact situation, sans expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, but keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has been in custody since 23.11.2010 and the charge-sheet after completion of investigation has been filed against him, which has been pending trial and the trial of the case is likely to take time to conclude, deem just and proper to grant indulgence of bail to the petitioner to defend his case independently and thus his second bail petition is allowed. 6. It is, therefore, ordered that the bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner Mohindar Kumar S/o Late Shri Prathvi Raj is allowed and he shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lac only) together with two local solvent sureties each in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand) to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before the learned trial Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so till the trial is concluded.Bail application allowed. *******