ORDER By the Court. - Heard the learned counsel for the .petitioner and learned Special P.P. for the prosecution. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connec40n with RC 5-A/2010 AHD. Ranchi for the offence under Sections 109 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2)/13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 3. The• case relates to possession of disproportionate assets by the Ex-Chief Minister and the other Ex-Ministers of the State and so far as this petitioner is concerned, the petitioner was posted as OSD to one Bhanu Pratap Shahi, who is also an Ex-Minister of the State. 4. The allegation against the petitioner is of abetment in illegal acquisition of wealth by said Bhanu Pratap Shahi, with whom, the petitioner was attached as OSD. The charge sheet submitted by the C.B.I. shows that the petitioner had negotiated various deals through which immovable property were acquired by Bhanu Pratap Shahi in the names of other persons, about which, it is alleged in the charge sheet that the property dealer involved in the deal had disclosed before the C.B.I. that the actual payment of the said property was to the tune of Rs.1 crore, but as the documentary evidence was not supporting the same, its registered value was taken into account. It also appears that there was a trust in the name of Dehati Sthapna Nyas, which got registered on 13.03.2008. in which, there is allegation against the petitioner to have shown donations through the fictitious names and the donors were found to be fictitious persons and non-existant persons. In the charge sheet, the list of the witnesses has also been given, which includes the name of Shri Vinay Kumar Jalan. The statement of Shri Vinay Kumar Jalan was also recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., wherein the said Vinay Kumar Jalan has stated that he was running a law firm and the petitioner had brought the documents of the said trust for the registration before the Income Tax Commissioner. He has also stated that the donations were made in cash even though, donation of more than Rs.20.000/- was not permitted to be made in cash. The statement of Vinay Kumar Jalan would further show that the petitioner had furnished a list of donors and on the instructions of this petitioner, the income tax return of those donors were prepared by Vinay Kumar Jalan. The statement of Vinay Kumar Jalan would further show that the petitioner had furnished a list of donors and on the instructions of this petitioner, the income tax return of those donors were prepared by Vinay Kumar Jalan. so as to show their validity before the Income Tax Authorities. He has also stated that actually the money shown as donations were the money of trusties themselves, as the persons who were shown as donors, had no capacity to make the donations of such amount. He has specifically mentioned about two persons, who had made donations, one of whom was a vegetable vendor and other was a newspaper vendor. He has so stated that whatever cash donations were made, they were undeclared money of the petitioner and other persons. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that 'the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case, only being OSD of the Ex-Minister. The petitioner had to follow the dictates of the Ex-Minister. It has also been submitted that there are Income tax returns of all the persons who were shown as the donors in the trust and the same were accepted by the Income Tax Authorities. Learned counsel has also submitted that the income tax returns of those donors would show that they had furnished the address of the said Vinay Kumar Jalan, but the said Vinay Kumar Jalan has not been arrayed as accused. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Placing reliance on two decisions of Honble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and others" reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694 and Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 , learned counsel has prayed for anticipatory bail. 6. Learned Special P.P. for he C.B.I., on the other hand, has opposed the prayer for bail submitting that it has been found in the investigation that the petitioner had actively assisted the said Ex-Minister in disproportionate acquisition of property and it had been found that it was the petitioner, who had negotiated the deals in making the acquisition of immovable property in the names of other persons, the market value of which were much higher than shown in the registration deeds. It has also been submitted that it was the petitioner, who had given the list of the persons to have made donations in the said trust and it was found that the donors were incapable of making donations of the amount shown against them. Apart from the above two illustrations of vegetable vendor and the newspaper vendor being shown as donors, it was also found that the person whose total income disclosed before the Income Tax Authorities in a particular year was only to the tune of Rs.1.35.000/- had been shown to have made the donation of about Rs.75.000/-. Learned Special P.P. has accordingly opposed the prayer for bail submitting that there are direct allegations of abetment of the offence against the petitioner. 7. Having heard the submissions of both the parties and upon going through the record and taking into account the serious charges levelled against the petitioner. I am not in favour of exercising the, discretion of granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this anticipatory bail application is accordingly, dismissed. Bail application dismissed.