Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—The petitioner Umesh Chandra Sharma @ U.C.Sharma, has filed this fourth bail application No. 7830 of 2012 and the petitioner Sunder Singh has filed the above seventh bail application No. 7183/2012 under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in Sessions Case No. 31/2010 pending in the court of Special Judge, CBI Cases No.1 Jaipur arising out of FIR No. RCJAI2008 A0023 registered at Police Station CBI Jaipur for offence under sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477 A IPC and under section 13(2) read with section 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 agaisnt the order dated 17.7.2012 of Special Judge CBI on the bail application No. 75/2012 (on the bail application of Umesh Chandra Sharma) and against the order dated 23.5.2012 (on the bail application of Sunder Singh). Since both the bail applications relate to FIR No RCJAI 2008 A 0023(23/08), they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Brief facts of the case are that a first information report No. RCJAI2008 AOO23 was registered at Police Station CBI, Jaipur for offence under sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477 A IPC and under Section 13(2) read with section 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It was alleged that the then Bank Manager Shri V.D.Bhatt, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, UIT Branch, Bharatpur along with Shri U.C. Sharma, the then Assistant Manager, SBBJ UIT Branch Bharatpur, Shri Gopal Singh, Assistant Manager and Rajendra Kumar, Head Cashier have misused their position and misappropirated the money of the accounts holders after entering into the conspiracy. It was revealed that in the year 2006-07 and 2007-08 SBBJ UIT Branch Bharatpur was completely computerized. Every employee working in this Branch has his own user ID and password and he can access the computer of the Branch. The employee used the ID through his own selected password and is responsible for safety of the same. Shri V.D. Bhatt was working as Dy. Manager (P) during the period from 30.7.2003 to 14.3.2007 at SBBJ Bharatpur. It was alleged that Shri Bhatt while working as Branch Manager, misused his ID and misappropriated the account holders money causing loss to the Bank. During the course of investigation the accused petitioner Umesh Chandra Sharma was arrested on 21.12.2010. The accused petitioner Sunder Singh was also arrested in the month of December, 2010. It was alleged that Shri Bhatt while working as Branch Manager, misused his ID and misappropriated the account holders money causing loss to the Bank. During the course of investigation the accused petitioner Umesh Chandra Sharma was arrested on 21.12.2010. The accused petitioner Sunder Singh was also arrested in the month of December, 2010. The first bail application of Sunder Singh S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail application No.98/2011 was decided on 5.1.2011 by this court. The accused petitioner Sunder Singh filed second bail application before the trial court and the trial court rejected the bail application No. 6/2011 vide order dated 18.1.2011. Thereafter the petitioner Sunder Singh filed second bail application No.582/2011 before this court and the same was decided on 20.1.2011. Thereafter on 10.2.2011 the accused petitioner filed third bail application No. 1147 of 2011. This court vide order dated 11.2.2011, rejected the bail application as withdrawn. Thereafter the petitioner Sunder Singh filed fourth bail application No. 1216 of 2011 on 11.2.2011 for interim bail for his sister's daughter marriage. This interim bail application was allowed vide order dated 15.2.2011 for a period of one month. Again fourth bail application No.3608/2011 was filed by the petitioner on 31.3.2011 and this court on the fourth bail application on 16.5.2011 passed the following order : “5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for both the parties. It is an admitted fact that the accused petitioner has filed this fourth bail application without any fresh ground. The first bail application of the accused petitioner was rejected by this court on 5.1.2011 permitting the accused petitioner to move bail application before the trial court after recording the statements of the material witnesses. The statements of the witnesses has not been recorded. Again the petitioner filed application before the trial court that he has deposited the amount in the bank. The trial court rejected his application observing that the statements of the witnesses are yet to be recorded. While rejecting the second bail application this court directed the trial court to record the statements of the material witnesses after framing of the charge within a period of 20 days. The third bail application filed by the accused petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn. The statements of the material witnesses are yet to be recorded. The trial court is directed to record the statements of the witnesses as early as possible. The third bail application filed by the accused petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn. The statements of the material witnesses are yet to be recorded. The trial court is directed to record the statements of the witnesses as early as possible. In these circumstances, at this stage the accused petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail. The bail application stands rejected. 3. Thereafter the petitioner Sunder Singh filed the fifth bail application No.7397 of 2011, this was also dismissed as withdrawn on 18.8.2011. There-after the petitioner Sunder Singh filed sixth bail application No.9870 of 2011 and the same was dismissed by this court on 17.10.2011 observing that the petitioner is free to move bail application before the trial court after recording the statements of material witnesses. The accused petitioner Sunder Singh thereafter filed bail application before the trial court and the trial court vide order dated 23.5.2012 rejected the bail application observing as under : ^^izkFkhZ ds izkFkZuk i= esa vafdr rF;ksa o cgl ds nkSjku fuosnu ds vuqlkj U;k;ky; ds le{k izkFkhZ dk ;g ikapok tekur izkFkZuk i= izLrqr gqvk gSA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds }kjk Hkh tekur izkFkZuk i= [kkfjt fd;k x;k gS] ftlesa ;g funsZ'k fn;k x;k Fkk fd egRoiw.kZ xokgksa ds ckn fopkj.k U;k;ky; esa iqu% tekur izkFkZuk i= izLrqr dj ldrk gSA vfHk;qä ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd dk ;g dguk fd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ds mijkUr rhu pkj xokg U;k;ky; esa izLrqr gq, gS] ftlesa vfHk;qä ds fo:) dksbZ ckr ugha dgh gSA lwph xokgku~ esa 77 xokg ukfer fd;s x;s gSA izdj.k esa tkyh nLrkostkr rS;kj djds Hkkjh jkf'k dk nqfoZfu;ksx fd;k x;k gSA fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd cgl esa ;g Li"V ugha dj ik, fd oLrqr% ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ds ikfjr djus ds mijkur ftu xokgksa dks ijhf{kr djk;k x;k gS] muds mijkUr lwph xokgku esa dksbZ xokg vfHk;qä ds fo:) vkjksi dks lkfcr djus ds fy, 'ks"k ugha jgrk] D;ksafd izjd.k esa bl U;k;ky; ds }kjk Hkh pkj tekur izkFkZuk i= [kkfjt fd, gS izdj.k dh ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ,slk dksbZ rkRdkfyd cnyko ugha vk;k] ftlds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ dk ;g tekur izkFkZuk i= Lohdkj fd;s tkus dk oS/kkfud vk/kkj j[krk gksA ,shl esa izkFkhZ dk tekur izkFkZuk i= Lohdkj fd, tkus ;ksX; ugha ik;k tkrk gSA** 4. Similarly the first bail application of the accused petitioner Umesh Chand Sharma No.42/2011 was rejected on 5.1.2011. Similarly the first bail application of the accused petitioner Umesh Chand Sharma No.42/2011 was rejected on 5.1.2011. The accused petitioner Umesh Chandra thereafter filed second bail application No.20/2011 before the trial court and the same was dismissed by the trial court on 24.2.2011. Thereafter the petitioner Umesh Chandra Sharma moved second bail application No. 3833 of 2011 before this court and this court vide a detailed order datd 16.5.2011 rejected his bail application observing as under : 5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for both the parties. It is an admitted fact that the accused petitioner has filed this second bail application without any fresh ground. The first bail appli-cation of the accused petitioner was rejected by this court on 5.1.2011 permitting the accused petitioner to move bail application before the trial court after recording the statements of the material witnesses. The statements of the witnesses has not been recorded. Before the trial court the accused petitioner agitated the ground that the co-accused Sunder Singh was released on interim bail. Sunder Singh was released on interim bail only account of marriage of his sister's daughter. The accused petitioner is main accused as the password issued to him by the Bank has been misused and he was responsible for the misdeed done in the case. In these circumstances, at this stage the accused petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. The petitioner Umesh Chand Sharma thereafter filed third bail application No. 3340 of 2012 before this court and this court vide order dated 2.7.2012 rejected the third bail application observing that the petitioner is free to move bail application before the trial court after recording of the statements of the material witnesses before the trial court. 5. The petitioner Umesh Chand Sharma thereafter filed third bail application No. 3340 of 2012 before this court and this court vide order dated 2.7.2012 rejected the third bail application observing that the petitioner is free to move bail application before the trial court after recording of the statements of the material witnesses before the trial court. The petitioner Umesh Chandra filed fourth bail application before the trial court and the trial court vide order dated 17.7.2012 rejected the bail application observing as under : ^^i=koyh esa vc rd 11 xokgksa ds c;ku gq, gS] ftlesa ih MCY;w 11 ineflag dk c;ku fnukad 5-3-2012 dks fy;k x;k gSA blds mijkUr fdlh xokg ds c;ku ugha gq, gSA bl U;k;ky; ds }kjk izkFkhZ ds r`rh; tekur izkFkZuk i= fnukad 24-12-11 dks [kkfjt gks tkus ds mijkUr fdlh xokg dk c;ku ugha gqvk gS ,sls esa izkFkhZ dks dksbZ U;k; oS/kkfud vk/kkj izkIr ugh gqvk gS ;k ,slk dksbZ ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa cnyko ugha gS ftlds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ ds bl tekur izkFkZuk i= dks bl U;k;ky; ds }kjk Lohdkj fd;k tkuk mfpr gksA ifj.kker% izkFkhZ dk ;g prqFkZ tekur izkFkZuk i= Lohdkj fd, tkus ;ksX; ugha ik;k tkrk gSA** 6. Mr. Biri Singh, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner Umesh chand Sharma, and Mr. R.S.Bhardwaj, have argued that the petitioners are in judicial lock up since 21.10.2010 and the petitioners have got no connection with the offence for which they have been charged. The mis appropriated amount of Rs. 23,00,000 has been deposited by the account holders and there is nothing against the accused petitioners. The learned counsel has further contended that the trial will take time and there are 77 witnesses and hence the bail application of the accused petitioners may be accepted. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma, Special Public Prosecutor opposed the bail applications and argued that the accused petitioners are the main accused and the password issued to them was misused and they were responsible for the whole of the scandal. Thus they are not entitled to be released on bail. There is no new ground in the bail applications filed by the accused petitioners Umesh Chandra Sharma and Sunder Singh. The trial court while rejecting their bail applications specifically pointed out that the accused petitioner are the main accused and their passwords were used for which they were responsible. Thus they are not entitled to be released on bail. There is no new ground in the bail applications filed by the accused petitioners Umesh Chandra Sharma and Sunder Singh. The trial court while rejecting their bail applications specifically pointed out that the accused petitioner are the main accused and their passwords were used for which they were responsible. This fourth bail application filed by the accused petitioner Umesh Chandra Sharma and the seventh bail applications filed by the petitioner Sunder Singh is liable to be rejected as this court directed the petitioners to move bail application before the trial court after recording the statements of the material witnesses. The statements of the material witnesses are yet to be recorded. Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma, has contended that such types of persons should not be released on bail who misappropriated the amount which has been deposited by the account holders and the accused petitioners have committed fraud against the peacefully living people of the country and such offenders should not be released on bail who have been charged for the offence of sections 409, 420, 468, 471, 477 A IPC and sections 13(2) read with section 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma, learned Special Public Prosecutor has contended that it is appropriate time to stop the corruption in the country and the CBI after due consideration of the the matrerial against them filed the charge sheet and still the statements of the witnesses are yet to be examined by the trial court and particularly when the accused petitioners have not submitted any new ground to release them on bail. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record made available to me. I do not think it proper to express any opinion as still the trial is going on. Hence the fourth bail applications of the accused petitioner Umesh Chandra Sharma and the seven bail application of the accused petitioner Sunder Singh deserve to be rejected and both are hereby rejected. However, it is expected from the trial court to conclude the trial as early as possible.