ORDER By the Court. - Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. 2. This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner in connection with Vigilance PS Case No. 11 of 2009 arising out of complaint case No. 2 of 2009 corresponding to Special Case No.15 of 2009 for offences registered under Sections 406/409/420/423/424/465/ 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 11, 12, 13 and 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. Gist of the prosecution case. in brief is that the Government of Jharkhand has to purchase seeds for welfare and development of the farmers of the State of Jharkhand from different Government organizations and Government undertakings who either produce seeds by themselves or supply the best quality of seeds certified by the reputed institutions. In this regard allotment was made available to the Department of Agriculture. Government of Jharkhand with the direction to purchase seeds according to the principle and the procedure framed. 4. It is alleged that the petitioner and other accused persons who were Heads of the Department of Agriculture. Government of Jharkhand, have flouted the norms and principles and issued purchase orders in favour of organizations of ill-repute. The comparative charts with regard to the rates of seeds submitted by various Government organizations of different States were not considered properly and orders for supply of seeds were given to some particular organisations in connivance with the mediator. Not only orders were given to those organisations for supply of seeds. it is also alleged that inferior quality of seeds without being certified by reputed Agricultural institutions were supplied. 5. So far as this petitioner is concerned. it is alleged that being the Director of the Department of Agriculture between the period from 2003-07. he has also committed the same offence for wrongful gain to him and the accused persons and for wrongful loss to the Government of Jharkhand. Details of transactions find mentioned in the complaint on the basis of which Vigilance Case No. 11 of 2009 dated 17.7.2009 has been registered. 6. It is submitted that the petitioner has committed no offence and he never violated the norms and procedures in purchasing seeds from Government organisations rather he has followed the instructions of the Hon'ble Agriculture Minister of the State of Jharkhand. 6. It is submitted that the petitioner has committed no offence and he never violated the norms and procedures in purchasing seeds from Government organisations rather he has followed the instructions of the Hon'ble Agriculture Minister of the State of Jharkhand. It is pointed out that the petitioner has raised objection against supply of seeds by WBPDDC Kolkata and WBSSC Kolkata and the Hon'ble Minister has given consent in the file asking the concerned organisations to furnish show cause. Payments were made to the suppliers and having meetings being attended by the Finance Secretary and other Secretaries of the concerned Departments. So far use of comparative charts with regard to supply of seeds is concerned, it were considered by the earlier Director for which petitioner cannot be held liable. Secretaries of the concerned departments and the mediator whose names have been surfaced in course of investigation have not been made accused. Till the date of investigation, it is not made clear as to what is the amount misappropriated what to say about the amount of misappropriation by the petitioner. The investigation is completely silent as to how the misappropriation of public exchequer was done and therefore, the petitioner has wrongly been arrayed as all accused in the case, although he is not named in the complaint. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Vigilance has vehemently opposed the prayer and pointed out relevant paragraphs of the counter-affidavit and the documents on record. It is contended that the rates given by different Government organisations were received but comparative charts were not applied with and orders were placed with those organisations who had furnished higher rates. As per the principles seeds had to be supplied by such organisations which produce seeds by themselves. but this principle was not followed and the petitioner had allowed supply of sub-standard seeds and also permitted that payments should be made to those organisations. It has come in investigation that sub-standard seeds on higher rates were purchased causing loss to public exchequer and the loss is more than crores of rupees. 8. It is also pointed out that bail application of another Director Nistar Minz has already been rejected by this Court after considering all aspects of the prosecution case and the petitioner is also another Director who stepped into the same shoes and did the same acts and committed the same offence. 9. 8. It is also pointed out that bail application of another Director Nistar Minz has already been rejected by this Court after considering all aspects of the prosecution case and the petitioner is also another Director who stepped into the same shoes and did the same acts and committed the same offence. 9. I have carefully gone through the voluminous documents and records placed before me. There appears substance in the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Vigilance and the documents annexed also support the allegations levelled in the First Information Report (FIR). Considering aforesaid aspects of the matter. I do 'not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with Vigilance PS Case No. 11 of 2009 (Special Case No. 15 of 2009) pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, Vigilance. Ranchi. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected and this application stands dismissed. Application dismissed.