Judgment Heard learned Sr. counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I on the matter of bail. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant, former Chief Minister-cum-Finance Minister of the State of Bihar having been convicted for various offences under Sections 120B read with Sections 420,409, 467, 468, 471 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years for some of the offences on the allegation that the appellant having knowledge that the officials of the AHD Department are withdrawing money fraudulently from different treasuries on the basis of forged allotment letters for purchasing feed, fodder, medicine etc. but in fact, either it was not purchased or purchased but in short and that he gave protection/patronage to the officials of the AHD Department facilitating them to draw money from the treasury illegally and fraudulently and in lieu of that, the appellant not only received hefty money but also received hospitalities from them time to time but the prosecution has failed to establish any of the circumstances as aforesaid on the basis of which the order of conviction has been recorded. 3. In this regard it was submitted that the C.B.I in order to prove the charge that the appellant received huge money from S.B. Sinha said to be the kingpin of the scam through R.K. Rana, co-convict has relied upon the evidences of the approvers P.W.195, R.K. Das, P.W.196 Dipesh Chandak and P.W.199, Dr. Shashi Kumar Singh, Veterinary Doctor. Of them, P.W. 196 and P.W.199 who have deposed that S.B. Sinha was very closed to the co-convict, R.K.Rana through whom this appellant used to receive money but both of them have admitted in their cross-examination that the payments had never been made to the appellant in their presence. P.W.199 has even gone to say that he had never met with this appellant and that whatever he has deposed about the money being received by this appellant, he has said so as he had heard about it. Thus, it was submitted that both the witnesses P.W.196 and P.W.199 are hearsay and their testimonies are not worth reliable at all and hence their testimonies to the effect, as stated above, are inadmissible in evidence. 4. Thus, it was submitted that both the witnesses P.W.196 and P.W.199 are hearsay and their testimonies are not worth reliable at all and hence their testimonies to the effect, as stated above, are inadmissible in evidence. 4. It was further submitted that so far P.W.195, R.K. Das is concerned, he is also an approver and has deposed that the appellant, Lalu Prasad Yadav and co-convict, R.K. Rana were in visiting term with S.B. Sinha and has claimed to have seen the appellant taking hefty money of Rs.5 lacs from S.B. Sinha but his evidence is not at all reliable for the reason that this witness was an accused in as many as 13 cases. After he was examined in this case, he was given pardon at the instance of the C.B.I and that for a considerable period, he was under custody of C.B.I during which he was tortured. In such event, it would be quite legitimate to draw conclusion that the C.B.I under the threat got the statement recorded. Moreover, the appellant was not aware about his earlier statement made under Section 161 as copy of the same was never given to the appellant, though to that effect an application has been filed for a direction to the C.B.I to furnish the copy of the statement made under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by him which prayer was resisted and ultimately copy of the statement was never given and in that event, a great prejudice has been caused to the appellant and thereby evidence of P.W.195 is not worth consideration so far this appellant is concerned. 5. Thus, it was submitted that the C.B.I has utterly failed to prove that any money drawn illegally by the officials of the AHD Department was ever paid to this appellant. 6. So far other aspect of the matter is concerned, learned counsel did submit that this appellant had been charged that the appellant by giving patronage to some of the officials of AHD Department by extending the period of their services or appointing one co-convicts under a sponsored programme did facilitate them to draw money illegally. 7. In this regard, it was submitted that it has been alleged that the extension of services was given to Dr. 7. In this regard, it was submitted that it has been alleged that the extension of services was given to Dr. S.B. Sinha, Girja Nand Sharma, R.K. Das, and Indrabhan Prasad under the order of this appellant but that order relating to extension of services can never be said to be illegal as it was within the competence of this appellant to pass such order and those orders have been passed absolutely in accordance with law and after taking into account the notes given by the officials of the AHD Department and therefore, these acts cannot be taken to be illegal. 8. It was further submitted that one co-convict, Dayanand Kashyap is said to have been appointed as Vice-Chairman of 20 Point Programme but from the document which was adduced in evidence to prove this fact, it would appear that in fact, one Din Dayal Kashyap had been appointed but some mischief has been played by someone whereby his name was struck off and the name of Dayanand Kashyap was added but the prosecution has not been able to establish that the appellant in any way connected in the act of mischief. 9. That apart, the court has also accepted the plea of C.B.I that the appellant had accepted the hospitality from some of the suppliers who had withdrawn money from the treasury without supplying the materials as had arranged AIR tickets worth Rs.44,000/- for the appellant and his family members but the court failed to take notice that this amount has also been subject matter of the case relating to disproportionate asset in which case the appellant has been acquitted after explanation submitted regarding his income was accepted and thereby that chapter now cannot be allowed to be reopened. 10. It was further submitted that accusation has also been levelled against the appellant that this appellant though had knowledge about the illegal withdrawal of money from different treasuries particularly of the AHD Department but did not take any action but the fact is that it was the appellant who had passed an order for lodging the case and this order was passed in the year 1996 only when the appellant came to know that the money is being drawn illegally and fraudulently from the treasuries. Before 1996 even the Additional Finance Secretary, P.W.102 and Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Finance, P.W.103 as well as D.C, Chaibasa were not aware before January, 1996 about money being drawn illegally and fraudulently. According to the evidence of P.W.103, when these matters were brought to the knowledge of the Chief Minister in the meeting, the appellant immediately passed an order for lodging a case. 11. Thus, it was submitted that the appellant deserves to be admitted on bail. 12. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I submits that the appellant had had knowledge of illegal withdrawal of the money from the different treasuries particularly of the Department of AHD before the appellant became Chief Minister of Bihar for the first time which would be appearing from so many circumstances which have been brought on the record. 13. It was stated that the witnesses P.W.102 and P.W.103 had occasion to know about the illegal withdrawal only when they held such offices but the circumstances which have come in the evidence would go to show that this appellant had had knowledge of illegal withdrawal much since before 1996. 14. In this respect it was submitted that in the year 1995, one committee of the House was under the knowledge of the fact that the kingpin of this scam S.B. Sinha (since died) has been posted in Ranchi from 1966 to 1998 and there has been illegal withdrawal of the money from the treasury and at the time, the committee could notice that lacs and lacs of rupees had been withdrawn and they have amassed huge wealth and therefore, the committee had made suggestion for taking action against them. Subsequently, appropriation report for the financial year 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94 was brought to the knowledge of this appellant whereby excess withdrawal had been shown. The CAG/AG had brought to the notice of the fact to the Bihar Government. Those letters of the CAG/AG had been placed before this appellant which, according to the appellant, was relating to the excess withdrawal and not fraudulent withdrawal but according to the counsel appearing for the C.B.I, those letters were indicative of the fact that the appellant was knowing that excess withdrawals are being made fraudulently particularly by AHD Department. One M.L.C had raised a question before the Legislative Council about the illegal withdrawal being made. One M.L.C had raised a question before the Legislative Council about the illegal withdrawal being made. In spite of assurance being given in the House, no effective check was made. Again the matter relating to withdrawal of Rs.50.56 lacs in the year 1993 on a particularly day by the co-convict, B.N. Sharma was brought to the notice of the appellant. A report was called for from the Director, AHD Department stating therein that relevant documents have been seized by the PAC. On such plea nothing was done in the matter by this appellant being Finance Minister. 15. It was submitted that on account of the said allegation, Dr. B.N. Sharma was transferred but in spite of serious allegation being there, his transfer was stayed on the recommendation made by one Rajo Singh. 16. Further when it was brought to the notice of the appellant that Seshmuni Ram, the then Regional Director, AHD, Dumka had given fake allotment letters of Rs.50 lacs, the appellant directed to get the matter be enquired by the Vigilance but on the behest of the then Chairman, PAC that was kept in abeyance. Subsequently, it transpires that D.G, Vigilance passed an order for stopping of the Vigilance enquiry but nothing was done by this appellant in this regard. 17. Thus, it was submitted that the appellant was knowing fully well from before 1996 about the nefarious activities of the officers of the AHD Department but nothing was done to prevent illegal withdrawal from the Treasury, rather persons who had involved themselves in such activities have been given incentives by giving extension of services. The period of service of S.B. Sinha, Girja Sharma, R.K. Das, Indrabhan Prasad were extended illegally in spite of objection being raised by the Department. 18. However, according to the counsel appearing for the appellant, those orders relating to extension of services of the persons stated above, were absolutely in accordance with law but at this stage, it needs no scrutiny. 18. However, according to the counsel appearing for the appellant, those orders relating to extension of services of the persons stated above, were absolutely in accordance with law but at this stage, it needs no scrutiny. That apart, it was also submitted that it has come on the record that S.B. Sinha was legal guardian of the daughter of the appellant pursuing studies of the boarding school at Ranchi and that evidence has also been laid that Air Tickets for the family members as well as appellant were arranged by one of the suppliers and that draft for payment of the school fees of the children of the appellant had been purchased by co-conspirator, R.K. Rana. 19. Thus, it was submitted that ample evidences have been laid to show that the appellant had had knowledge from before about the fraudulent withdrawal from the Treasury but in spite of that, no effective step was taken by the appellant and that apart, adequate evidences are also there to show that persons who had involved themselves in such illegal withdrawal had been given patronage and in lieu of that, the appellant was obliged by them. 20. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances placed on behalf of the parties and particularly the materials placed on behalf of the C.B.I, I am not inclined to grant bail to the appellant. Hence, the prayer for bail of the appellant is rejected at this stage.