ORDER By the Court.-Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. On 09.5.2013, C.B.I. produced the status report which we perused and returned and today has been fixed for talking up the matter. Today, we have again perused the status report produced by the C.B.I. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Rajeev Kumar submitted that he has already pointed out before this Court on 15.4.2013 that C.B.I. is delaying the investigation and during this period one of the accused got bail from the Trial Court. He submitted that the Court which rejected the anticipatory bail application or the Court which Court has allowed the bail application both have not looked in to the facts of the case and allegations but only looked in to the sections mentioned in the F.I.R. 4. It will be appropriate to recapitulate the facts. In Biennial Rajya Sabha Election, 2012 in the State of Jharkhand some money was found in possession of some persons amounting to Rs. 2.15 crores and Election Commission vide Notification dated 30.03.2012 stayed the counting of the votes and ultimately cancelled the election itself. Two writ petitions being W.P.(PIL) No. 1801 of 2012 and another W.P.(C) No. 1802 of 2012 were preferred before this Court which were heard and decided by this Court (us) vide Judgment dated 05.04.2012. This Court dismissed the writ petition being W.P.(PIL) No. 1801 of 2012 with a cost of Rs. One lakh and also dismissed another writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 1802 of 2012 but without cost. By the said Judgment dated 05.04.2012 the investigation was handed over to C.B.I. In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 05.04.2012, one case already registered by the State police on 30.04.2012 under Sections 171(F) and 188/34, IPC was handed over to C.B.I. by the order of State Government dated 9.4.2012, and then C.B.I. registered as case being R.C. Case No. 2(S)/2012 and proceeded to investigate into the matter. During investigation number of applications, were submitted before the Special, Judicial Magistrate C.B.I., Ranchi for issuance of Search Warrants. During investigation number of applications, were submitted before the Special, Judicial Magistrate C.B.I., Ranchi for issuance of Search Warrants. In the applications even in first application submitted on 20.4.2012 and in subsequent applications on which the Court passed the orders on 16.5.2012 and on 8.6.2012, C.B.I. submitted that though F.I.R has been registered under Sections 171(F) and 188 read with Section 34, IPC but the offences are in fact covered under Sections 7, 8 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and on that basis, Search Warrant were sought. The said all applications of C.B.I. were allowed by the concerned Court and Search Warrants were issued. Thereafter, before the same Magistrate applications were submitted for recording statements of the number of witnesses under Section 164, Cr PC which were also allowed and witnesses were examined under Section 164, Cr. P. C. on 27.9.2012, 29.9.2012, 9.10.2012, 10.10.2012, 11.10.2012, 12.10.2012, 16.1.2013, 17.1.2013, 23.1.2013, 24.1.2013 and 16.3.2013. 5. In backdrop of these facts, one of the accused R.K. Agarwal submitted anticipatory bail application before the Court of Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi on 03.4.2013 which was considered on 05.4.2013 and rejected on the same day, i.e., vide order dated 05.4.2013. In the order dated 05.4.2013, there is reference of above F.I.R which was registered under Section 171-F/188 r/w 34, IPC. There is also reference of contention of C.B.I. that according to CBI, the offences are pertaining to Sections 7, 8 and 12 of the P.C. Act. Learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-cum-Special Judge, XVI, C.B.I., Ranchi was of the view that "Still the case is under Section 171F/188 r/w Section 34 of the IPC, which are bailable in nature. Offences under Sections 7, 8 and 12 of the P.C. Act have not been added in the F.I.R till now." After observing so, the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-cum-Special Judge, XVI, C.B.I., Ranchi held that the anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner is not maintainable obviously for the reason that according to view of the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-cum-Special Judge, XVI. C.B.I., F.I.R was only for commission of the offences which were bailable and in the F.I.R. offence under Sections 7, 8 and 12 of P.C. Act have not been added. 6. C.B.I., F.I.R was only for commission of the offences which were bailable and in the F.I.R. offence under Sections 7, 8 and 12 of P.C. Act have not been added. 6. Faced this situation due to rejection of the anticipatory bail application, the accused R.K. Agarwal surrendered in the same concerned Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI on 9.4.2013 and submitted regular bail application under Section 436, Cr PC who, on earlier occasion on the application of CBI issued search warrants and allowed recording of statement under Section 164, Cr PC. According to accused R.K. Agarwal, the offences (since as registered in FIR) were bailable in nature and, therefore, the accused was entitled to be released on bail under Section 436, Cr PC upon surrender. By order of learned Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI dated 09.4.2013, the accused R.K. Agarwal was released on bail. A copy of this order is also available with the status report submitted by the C.B.I. Before the Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I., Ranchi it was submitted on behalf of the accused that F.I.R discloses the bailable offences and accused was summoned under Section 160, Cr PC and he was directed to appear before the S.P., C.B.I. and therefore the accused has apprehension that he may be arrested. Learned Public Prosecutor for the C.B.I. admitted that so far as F.I.R is concerned, in F.I.R there is mention of bailable offence but the contents of FIR clearly disclosing commission of offence punishable not only under provisions of IPC but also under P.C. Act. However, learned Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I. took note of the fact as mentioned of rejection of anticipatory bail in the order dated 05.04.2013 passed by Additional Judicial Commissioner-cum-Special Judge, XVI. C.B.I., Ranchi, referred above wherein it has been observed that petitioner has been summoned for answering certain questions relating to the cases and still the case (as mentioned in FIR) is under Section 171F/188 r/w Section 34, IPC, which are bailable in nature. Learned Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I., Ranchi also took note of the observation of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-cum-Special Judge XVI, C.B.I. Ranchi, that offence under Sections 7, 8 and 12 of the P.C. Act have not been added in the F.I.R till now. Learned Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I., Ranchi also took note of the observation of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-cum-Special Judge XVI, C.B.I. Ranchi, that offence under Sections 7, 8 and 12 of the P.C. Act have not been added in the F.I.R till now. Then, specifically, learned Magistrate observed that "in the light of the observation made by learned A.J.C. passed in A.B.A No. 518 of 2013, the F.I.R has been lodged under Section 171F/188 r/w Section 34 of the IPC which are bailable in nature the petitioner named Raj Kumar Agarwal is hereby released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 15000/- with two security of the like amount each". Therefore, in these circumstances, one of the accused was released on bail. 7. Learned counsel for the C.B.I. Mr. Md. Mokhtar Khan vehemently submitted that what sections are mentioned in the F.I.R. itself are not conclusive to determine the nature of allegation about commission of offences. In present case from the facts stated in the FIR clearly disclosed commission of offences which are punishable under Sections 7, 8 and 12 of the P.C. Act. It is submitted that it was already pointed out before the Court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-cum-Special Judge, XVI, C.B.I., Ranchi, and the Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I., Ranchi, i.e., both the Courts that in the F.I.R. there may be mention of sections which may be bailable offences but from the record as well as the F.I.R. itself is disclosing the offence, which are punishable under Sections 7, 8 and 12 of P.C. Act and the Court should have looked into entire case to find out what sort of the charges can be against the accused, who is seeking either anticipatory bail or regular bail. It is submitted before both the Courts that allegation discloses commission of non-bailable offences but those arguments were ignored by both the Courts. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the C.B.I. that there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure whereunder prosecution or I.O. is required to seek amendment in the charge mentioned in the F.I.R. It is submitted that if F.I.R. is lodged, it is required to be sent to the concerned Courts having the jurisdiction without any delay as required under. Section 157, Cr PC After registration of the FIR investigating agency is required to complete the investigation and. Section 157, Cr PC After registration of the FIR investigating agency is required to complete the investigation and. submit a report under Section 173, Cr PC in either case, whether the offence is made out or no case is made out. During period of registration of F.I.R. to filing of the charge-sheet under Section 173, Cr. P.C, investigating agency proceeds with the investigation and collects evidence and during that investigation, different offences may be found and those offences can be investigated by the I.O. and ultimately, result is submitted in the charge-sheet. However, in the case, non-bailable offences were already disclosed to the Courts yet the Courts proceeded on wrong premises. According to learned counsel for C.B.I., time to time progress duly recorded in the relevant case diary is also required to be seen and considered before deciding the bail application. Therefore, whenever bail petition is heard, the Court usually calls the case diary for examination of the facts of the case and does not rely only upon the offences mentioned in the F.I.R Learned counsel for C.B.I. vehemently submitted that in this case, it is not that during subsequent investigation new charges came to the light but according to C.B.I., the charges were already disclosed in the F.I.R itself pertaining to Sections 7, 8 and 12 of the P.C. Act. Therefore, the Courts should have taken note of the facts of the case and should not have been influenced by the charge mentioned in the F.I.R. 8. Learned counsel, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, though has not filed any application nor filed the Vakalatnama but appeared on behalf of the accused R.K. Agarwal and drew our attention to the fact that subsequently accused R.K. Agarwal's bail order has been cancelled vide order dated 7.5.2013 and he has already approached this Court by filing appropriate application, which is likely to be heard today itself. He has apprehension that because of any observation, made in this petition in any order his case may be prejudiced and it is also submitted that since this Court is monitoring the case, the case of the accused persons would be likely to be prejudiced. 9. We considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, counsel for CBI and counsel for accused R.K. Agarwal. 9. We considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, counsel for CBI and counsel for accused R.K. Agarwal. So far as this Public Interest Litigation is concerned, we have already observed that this petition is only to see that the fair investigation is completed. This Court only sought status report from C.B.I. to find out what is the progress of investigation. We can take judicial notice of the fact that in the year 2010 also, there was allegation of same Horse Trading in the Rajya Sabha Election 2010 and that matter was under investigation with the Vigilance Department of the State Government. Even in such a serious matter the Vigilance Department, Government of Jharkhand did not proceed one step ahead in three years; therefore this Court was constrained to hand over the matter to C.B.I. and also directed the C.B.I. to enquire into the conduct of the investigating officer as to find out whether there is criminality in their conduct also or not? 10. In that view of the matter and peculiar situation this Court finds it appropriate to monitor the investigation only for the purpose that the investigation is completed in time and the result by submitted to the concerned Court which may be of "no case made out" or "by filing the charge-sheet against the accused persons". During this course, what has happened has been only taken note of in this order also. We have taken note of the facts which are relevant for the purpose of monitoring the fair investigation only. This Court vide order dated 06th May, 2013 directed the C.B.I. to give particulars of the facts mentioned in para-16 of the order which are as follows : "(a) When the criminal case was registered in the Horse Trading case of Rajya Sabha Election-2012 ? (b) When the matter reached to the C.B.I. and registered as C.B.I. case ? (c) Before reaching to the C.B.I. what investigation was completed by the State investigating agency? (d) In chronological orders, dates be given of the bail applications submitted in this case and the copies of the orders may also be submitted which were passed on the bail applications." 11. (c) Before reaching to the C.B.I. what investigation was completed by the State investigating agency? (d) In chronological orders, dates be given of the bail applications submitted in this case and the copies of the orders may also be submitted which were passed on the bail applications." 11. It was necessary to examine whether the case has been registered under proper section and if not, then whether C.B.I. has taken care of looking into the allegation se as to find out the real nature of the offence. It was also necessary to see that investigation should be completed in time. Therefore, all these facts have been taken note of only. This Court has not passed any order so as to influence the merit of the case of any of the persons, nor is making any comment on any of the order, which has been passed in judicial side. This Court is also making it clear that monitoring by this Court is only with the object and purpose to see that the investigation is conducted in a fair and expeditions manner. All the Courts are free to decide the matters strictly in accordance with law uninfluenced by the monitoring by this Court. Therefore, the apprehension of any accused that because of monitoring of the case by this Court, their cases can be prejudiced is without any basis. We have already given instance of Rajya Sabha Election, 2010 which demanded and also justifies handing over the matter of Rajya Sabha Election, 2012 to C.B.I. and its monitoring by this Court. 12. Learned counsel for C.B.I. has already informed that C.B.I. is likely to file the charge-sheet in a short period. This fact has also been taken note of and we will wait till filing of the charge-sheet by the C.B.I. 13. Status report which has been produced in this Court by C.B.I. today is being returned to learned counsel for C.B.I for the purpose of maintaining secrecy in the investigation. 14. The next status report be submitted by C.B.I. on 11.06.2013. List this case on 11.6.2013. Ordered accordingly.