Rajesh Dayal Khare, J.— Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, Sri Anurag Khanna, learned Counsel for the opposite party No.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State respondent. , 2. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the applicant is the Proprietor of M/s. Jai Ganesh Traders, 2/33, Sector-B, Priyadarshani Colony, Sitapur Road, Lucknow. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this Court to An-nexure-2 to the affidavit, which is the charge-sheet dated 23-2-2012 and has referred to internal page 2 and has argued that as per the charge-sheet, the then Chief Medical Officer, Dr. R.S. Verma was found involved in various irregularities in purchase of medicines as the indents were directly placed and handed over to the private firm M/s. Jai Ganesh Traders, Lucknow by diverting the supply orders. The orders/indents were placed to M/s. HAL and M/s. IDPL, Lucknow but the same were diverted to the firm of the applicant. It is further argued that if any irregularities in the procedure was found, it was done by Dr. R.S. Verma, CMC1 and not by the applicant. Reference has also been drawn to Annexure-3 and 4 to the affidavit, which are the certificates issued by M/s. Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. and M/s. Indian Drug and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. certifying that M/s. Jai Ganesh Traders is their authorized distributor to procure the orders, make the supplies and collect the payments on their behalf. Learned Counsel for the applicant has further drawn attention of this Court to Annex-ure-5 to the affidavit, which is the document of Bank showing that Mahendra Kumar Pandey is the authorized signatory of the firm M/s. Jai Ganesh Traders. Learned Counsel for the applicant has referred to paragraph No. 6 of the rejoinder affidavit and stated that the drug licence of the applicant was granted in the year 2002 and was renewed from time to time. It is further contended that there is noth¬ing on record to show that the medicines, which were supplied by the firm of the applicant, was supplied on higher price and not on rate contract or any subs-standered medicines were supplied. After due supply of medicines, payment has been made, as such, there is no illegality or irregularity done by the applicant. After due supply of medicines, payment has been made, as such, there is no illegality or irregularity done by the applicant. It is further contended that the applicant is in jail since 2-9-2013 and if she is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail. 4. Learned Counsel for the opposite party No.2 has contended that under the NRHM Scheme, procedure should be followed strictly for providing the medicines and for the purchase of medicines above Rs. One Lac, tender system should be adopted and in the present case tender system was diverted an indent was given to the firm of applicant in connivance and conspiracy of Dr. R.S. Verma, the then C.M.O., thus, it is contended that the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. Learned A.G.A. has also opposed the prayer for bail. 6. Perused the First Information Report as well as averments made in the application. 7. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, let the applicant Smt. Nirupama Pandey involved in special case No. 14 of 2013 under Section 120-B read with Sections 409,420,467,468 and 471, IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act Police Station C.B.I./STF, New Delhi pending before Special Judge, Anti Corruption, C.B.I. (NRHM), Ghaziabad be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the conditions that she: (1) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial Court; (2) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (3) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses. In case of default of any of the aforesaid conditions, this bail order shall automatically stand cancelled. Bail granted. ______________