JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the relevant documents placed before me. 2. This is fourth application for grant of bail by the accused-petitioner. His first bail application was dismissed by order of this Court dated 27.4.2011 taking into consideration the merits of the case. His second bail application was dismissed by order dated 20.9.2011. Petitioner then filed third bail application on the premise that co-accused Ram Sahai Chhinnwal against whom also there are 26 cases registered in series of similar offences relating to disbursement of the amount of scholarship to the students of SC and ST has been granted bail by coordinate bench of this Court in bail application no. 5863/11 by order dated 29.6.2011, whereas the petitioner was booked in 18 similar instances, all of them were similar in nature and were multiplied though it should have been only one FIR. This Court still dismissed the bail application by order dated 29.8.2012 observing that if the trial is not concluded within six months, petitioner may again apply for bail before the court below. Since the trial was not completed within six months, petitioner has again applied before the trial court, which has dismissed his bail application by order dated 15.4.2013. Hence this bail application. 3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there are total 46 witnesses against which statement of only four witnesses have been recorded. Petitioner is in jail for last more than two and half years and considering the total number of witnesses, the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. Learned counsel relied on the judgement of Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI - (2012) 1 SCC 40 and argued that the petitioner on the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court, should be enlarged on bail particularly when he is in jail for last more than two and half years and the trial is likely to take many more years to continue. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. 5. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of this case but taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 6. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. 5. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of this case but taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 6. In the result, this bail application u/S.439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Murari Lal Meena S/o Shri Somoti Ram Meena shall be released on bail till disposal of the appeal in F.I.R. No. 221/09, P.S. A.C.B. Chowki Sawaimadhopur for offence under section 467, 468, 471, 409, 420, 102B of IPC and Section 13(1)(D) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- together with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court on the following conditions: (1) that the petitioner shall attend the trial on each and every date; (2) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person/witness acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer; or to temper with the evidence; (3) that the petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court. Bail application allowed. *******