JUDGMENT : This Criminal Petition is filed, under Sections 437 and 439 Cr.P.C, seeking bail by the petitioner who is A7 in C.C. No.1 of 2012 (RC 17(A)/2009-CBI/HYD) on the file of the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad. The main allegations against Gali Janardhan Reddy (A2), M/s. Obulapuram Mining Company Private Limited (M/s.OMCPL) and the petitioner/A7, in brief, can be stated as follows. Permanent boundary pillars were shifted for illegal mining. To facilitate illegal transportation, unauthorized roads were formed and lakhs of metric tones of iron ore was transported. There was illegal dumping of iron ore in the adjacent reserved forest area. There was improper fixation of location of mining area, resulting in encroachment into the adjoining mining lease areas. M/s. Bellary Iron Ores Private Limited (BIOPL) had shown dispatch of 2.5 lakh MTs of iron ore from its lease area whereas no active mining activity was found in the said mining area. The application of A2 was processed unduly fast and several illegalities and irregularities were noticed. Companies were floated. Illegal transactions were resorted for transferring money. M/s. OMCPL (A4) carried out illegal mining in the neighbouring mining areas of M/s. MBT and M/s. Hind Traders. Several lease holders were threatened. M/s. Mehboob Transport, M/s. MBT was compelled to sell their excavated mineral at a low cost to M/s. Devi Enterprises. Total value of illegal mined ore was estimated at Rs.884.13 Crores. Total illegal mining is estimated at 65,82,341 MTs. The house of the petitioner was searched by the Income Tax authorities on 02.11.2010. Various records were recovered including hard disc of the computer of the petitioner having lot of data which reveals that various quantities of iron ore were shown to have been dispatched from different mines in Karnataka and it was shown as proposed shipment in the account of M/s. OMCPL (A4). The petitioner was actively associated with the illegal mining activities of other accused. He was representing A2 Gali Janardhan Reddy in all the illegal mining activities. The petitioner was absconding from the date of registration of the case. Look out notices were issued in his name. When A2 was produced before the CBI Court at Bangalore in Cr.No.RC.No.18(A) 2011-CBI/ACB/BLR on 02.03.2012, the petitioner surrendered before the CBI Court at Bangalore. Then he was taken to police custody by the CBI, Bangalore. He was produced before the CBI Court, Hyderabad on P.T. Warrant. Look out notices were issued in his name. When A2 was produced before the CBI Court at Bangalore in Cr.No.RC.No.18(A) 2011-CBI/ACB/BLR on 02.03.2012, the petitioner surrendered before the CBI Court at Bangalore. Then he was taken to police custody by the CBI, Bangalore. He was produced before the CBI Court, Hyderabad on P.T. Warrant. The petitioner floated a firm namely M/s. Devi Enterprises for A2 and others and carried out and assisted the other accused in illegal mining of iron ore. Though there were no business transactions between M/s. Devi Enterprises and M/s. Third Eye Infrastructure, Rs.5.00 Crores were transferred from M/s. Third Eye Infrastructure to M/s. Devi Enterprises and another Rs.5.00 Crores were transferred from M/s.Madhushree Enterprises which is also situated in the same premises as that of M/s. Devi Enterprises. This money was used for purchasing huge extent of land (250 acres of land) near Bangalore Airport. The petitioner applied for Gun license in which he had categorically mentioned that he was PA of Gali Janardhan Reddy (A2). Several lease holders were threatened to come to their terms and forcible entries were made in their areas. The petitioner seems to have declared his total income as Rs.65 Crores out of which Rs.50 Crores is said to be the income from other sources, but according to CBI, it can be termed as crime proceeds of illegal mining. One H. Mallikarjuna of M/s. Hind Traders and several others gave statements with regard to forcible entries, threatenings. Statements of H. Mallikarjuna were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C and 164 Cr.P.C. Police protection is given to H. Mallikarjuna. The petitioner along with A2 had taken the services of Dushyanth Reddy of M/s. Vijaya Leasing Company (M/s VLC) and carried out illegal mining in various mines in Karnataka. Although the mining was going on for Gali Janardhan Reddy (A2) by M/s. Vijaya Leasing Company (M/s.VLC) but the bills were raised in the names of different companies by M/s. VLC on the instructions of Gali Janardhan Reddy (A2) and the petitioner/A7. The charge sheet is filed against the petitioner/A7 for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B r/w 409, 420, 468 IPC, under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988. The charge sheet is filed against the petitioner/A7 for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B r/w 409, 420, 468 IPC, under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988. It is also mentioned in the charge sheet that the investigation with regard to the illegal income derived from illegal mining activities spreading throughout the country, investments made in the firms abroad, the investments made in the real estate, the role of public servants and further ramifications of the case is continuing under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. The CBI filed first charge sheet on 03.12.2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B r/w 420, 409, 468 and 471 IPC and under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 and the same is numbered as C.C. No.1 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, at Hyderabad. The petitioner had surrendered before the CBI Court at Bangalore on 20.03.2012. On 02.01.2013 supplementary charge sheet is laid against A7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 05.10.2012 and that the name of the petitioner is not shown in the first charge sheet filed on 03.12.2011 and in the supplementary charge sheet on 30.03.2012. It is further submitted that the C.B.I. filed the supplementary charge sheet making certain allegations against the petitioner on 02.01.2013 and investigation as far as the petitioner is concerned has been completed. The main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been doing his own business and that he is neither a public servant nor a banker and he was not entrusted with any property and in view of the same, Section 409 IPC is not applicable as far as petitioner is concerned. It is further submitted that the allegation that the petitioner was threatening the witnesses has no basis and none of the witnesses, whose statements were recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., made any such allegations. It is further submitted that Accused No.3 has been enlarged on bail and that the petitioner’s wife is a Doctor and he has immovable property and business and the question of his absconding does not arise. It is further submitted that Accused No.3 has been enlarged on bail and that the petitioner’s wife is a Doctor and he has immovable property and business and the question of his absconding does not arise. It is further submitted that the case is at the stage of framing of charges and there are 260 witnesses to be examined and about 600 documents to be marked in this case and there is no possibility of concluding the trial in near future. It is further submitted that grant of bail is the rule and its denial is an exception and that the petitioner would abide by any conditions imposed by the Court. Sri Kesava Rao, learned Standing Counsel for CBI, submitted that from the date of the registration of the case, the petitioner herein who is the prime accused had been absconding and that he could not be arrested. It is further submitted that the petitioner is also an accused in another case registered at Bangalore. It is further submitted that when A.2 was produced on P.T. warrant in Bangalore on 02.03.2012, the petitioner surrendered before the CBI Court at Bangalore on the same day and then the investigating agency filed an application seeking custody of the petitioner in this case and accordingly he was remanded to judicial custody. It is further submitted that when the petitioner was taken into police custody and he was interrogated, many things surfaced. Sri Kesava Rao, referring to Para Nos.17, 23, 28 and 29 of the charge sheet filed against the petitioner, submitted that the investigation with regard to illegal income derived from illegal mining activities spreading throughout the country reveal that investments have been made in the firms abroad and also in real estate business and further investigation is in progress and the particulars of end beneficiaries and concealment of wealth in various forms have to be unearthed and if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, it will hamper further investigation. He further submits that the petitioner is right hand to Gali Janardhan Reddy (A2) and that he had been threatening the witnesses and that several witnesses in their statements before the investigating officer have categorically referred to the name of the petitioner as the person who used to threaten them. He further submits that the petitioner is right hand to Gali Janardhan Reddy (A2) and that he had been threatening the witnesses and that several witnesses in their statements before the investigating officer have categorically referred to the name of the petitioner as the person who used to threaten them. It is further submitted that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail it will not only hamper further investigation and it will have great impact on the trial since no witnesses would come forward to depose truth before the Court. Sri Kesava Rao, has also referred to various judgments of the Apex Court and various principles discussed with regard to the grant and refusal of bail. The point that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled for bail? The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a judgment reported in Sanjay Chandra v. C.B.I (2012 Crl.L.J. 702), and submitted that the said case is similar to the present case wherein it was alleged that the offences that are charged are economic offences of huge magnitude. It is also submitted that grant of bail is the rule and its denial is an exception. It is also submitted that the petitioner himself surrendered before the Court and therefore the question of fleeing from justice would not arise. Sri Kesava Rao, learned standing counsel for CBI submits that the principles laid down in Sanjay Chandra’s case (1 supra) are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In that case the Apex Court observed that merely because the allegations made against the accused are serious in terms of alleged huge loss to the State Exchequer, that should not be the sole circumstance to deny the bail to the accused. However, it was observed that when there is no serious contention of the prosecuting agency that the accused, if released on bail, would interfere with the trial or tamper with evidence those factors should be kept in mind. In Sanjay Chandra’s case there was no allegation against the accused that he was threatening the witnesses or that he was interfering with the trial or tampering with evidence. In Sanjay Chandra’s case there was no allegation against the accused that he was threatening the witnesses or that he was interfering with the trial or tampering with evidence. In State of U.P. through CBI v. Amarmani Tripathi ( (2005) 8 SCC 21 ), the Apex Court observed as follows: “It is well settled that the matters to be considered in an application for bail are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witness being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. While a vague allegation that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be refused.” Sri Kesava Rao, has relied on a judgment reported in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan ( (2005) 2 SCC 42 ). In that case Ajit Sarkar a sitting M.L.A. of Bihar Assembly was murdered. It is alleged that there was enmity between the accused Rajesh Ranjan and the deceased Ajit Sarkar. It was alleged that Rajesh Ranjan had entered into a criminal conspiracy with other co-accused to eliminate the deceased Ajit Sarkar and held a meeting with the co-accused and instructed some of the co-accused to falsify certain records to create an alibi for himself and another accused. It is alleged that as per the directions of Rajesh Ranjan the deceased was shot dead. It was argued that apart from the retracted confession there was no supporting or corroborative evidence available for prosecution. In that case, some witnesses were examined and nearly 44 more witnesses were to be examined by the prosecution. The eight bail applications filed by the accused Rajesh Ranjan were dismissed and SLPs filed against the said dismissal orders were also dismissed by the Apex Court. In that case, some witnesses were examined and nearly 44 more witnesses were to be examined by the prosecution. The eight bail applications filed by the accused Rajesh Ranjan were dismissed and SLPs filed against the said dismissal orders were also dismissed by the Apex Court. But, however, in nineth application the High Court granted bail to the accused holding that no prima facie case was made out and evidentiary value of retracted confession of the co-accused is a weak type of evidence. The Apex Court observed that though the principle of res judicata is not applicable in a criminal proceeding, still the Courts are bound to doctrine of judicial discipline having regard to the hierarchal system prevailing in our country and the findings of the Higher Court or a coordinate Bench must receive serious consideration at the hands of the Court entertaining a bail application at a later stage when the same had been rejected earlier. The Apex Court further came to the conclusion that the grounds on which the High Court granted bail were already considered by the Apex Court on the earlier occasion and rejected the bail applications. The Apex Court further observed as follows: “While deciding the cases on facts, more so in criminal cases the court should bear in mind that each case must rest on its own facts and the similarity of facts in one case cannot be used to bear in mind the conclusion of fact in another case. It is also a well-established principle that while considering the ratio laid down in one case, the court will have to bear in mind that every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved or assumed to be true since the generality of expressions which may be found therein are not intended to be expositions of the whole of the law, but are governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found. A case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it.” The Apex Court also considered the conduct of the accused in that case and opined that if he is released on bail he would certainly threaten the witnesses and tamper with the evidence and thus according to the Apex Court the conduct of the accused is also a relevant factor to be considered by the Court while considering bail application. It was also observed as follows: “It is trite law that personal liberty cannot be taken away except in accordance with the procedure established by law. Personal liberty is a constitutional guarantee. However, Article 21 which guarantees the above right also contemplates deprivation of personal liberty by procedure established by law. Under the criminal laws of this country, a person accused of offences which are non-bailable is liable to be detained in custody during the pendency of trial unless he is enlarged on bail in accordance with law. Such detention cannot be questioned as being violative of Article 21 since the same is authorized by law. But even persons accused of non-bailable offences are entitled to bail if the court concerned comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against him and/or if the court is satisfied for reasons to be recorded that in spite of the existence of prima facie case there is a need to release such persons on bail where fact situations require it to do so.” The learned counsel for CBI also relied upon a judgment reported in State of U.P. through CBI v. Madhumani Tripathi. In that case it was alleged that the deceased Madhumita Shukla was having an affair with Amarmani Tripathi a Minister in the U.P. Government at the relevant time. Madhumani Tripathi wife of Amarmani Tripathi conspired with other accused and her husband to kill the deceased. It was alleged that the deceased was shot dead in her house in pursuant to said conspiracy. Considering the certain circumstances such as filing of charge sheet, High Court granted bail to Amarmani Tripathi and Madhumani Tripathi. The Apex Court considered various principles for granting/cancelling bail and observed as follows. It was alleged that the deceased was shot dead in her house in pursuant to said conspiracy. Considering the certain circumstances such as filing of charge sheet, High Court granted bail to Amarmani Tripathi and Madhumani Tripathi. The Apex Court considered various principles for granting/cancelling bail and observed as follows. “In case where the accused stands charged of offences punishable with life imprisonment or even death penalty, the mere fact that the accused has undergone certain period of incarceration (these observations were made where the accused was in jail for three years) by itself it would not entitle the accused to be enlarged on bail. Thus it was held that the circumstances that the accused is in jail for a quite long period or that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future would not be sufficient circumstances for enlarging the accused on bail when the gravity of the offence alleged is severe and there are allegations of tampering with the witnesses. The Apex Court further observed as follows: “That a balance has to be drawn by the court to protect fair trial and to secure justice being done to the society by preventing the accused who is set at liberty by the bail order from tampering with the evidence in a heinous crime and if there is delay in such as case the underlying object of cancellation of bail practically loses all its purpose and significance to the great prejudice and the interest of the prosecution. The court summed up the principle that the ground to deny bail will be when by testing the balance of probabilities it appears that the accused has abused his liberty or that there is a reasonable apprehension that he will interfere with the course of justice. The jurisdiction to grant bail must be exercised on the basis of well settled principles having regard to the circumstances of each case. The jurisdiction to grant bail must be exercised on the basis of well settled principles having regard to the circumstances of each case. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character, behavior, means and standing of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused and reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with.” Having regard to the allegations made against the accused in that case that there is reasonable apprehension that the accused may threaten the witnesses and tamper with the evidence, the Apex Court allowed the appeal and cancelled the bail. Sri Kesava Rao, has also referred to the order of the Apex Court in Crl.A.No.730 of 2013 (in case between Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI). It was an appeal directed against the order of this Court in Crl.P.No.8750 of 2012 dismissing the petition filed by Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy for grant of bail. In that case the accused was arrested on 27.05.2012. The Apex Court dismissed the appeal filed by Jagan Mohan Reddy on 09.05.2013. The Apex Court by observing that release of Jagan Mohan Reddy would hamper further investigation as he may influence the witnesses and tamper with material evidence dismissed the appeal. It is observed as follows: “Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. While granting bail, the Court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations.” In the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the above referred judgments the facts and rival contentions of the parties have to be considered in this case. The Apex Court in SLP (Civil) Nos.7366-7367/2010, observed as follows: “The Report of CEC shows that illegalities have taken place in respect of mining lease No.2434 of M/s. Associated Mining Company (“M/s. AMC” for short). The Report shows several illegalities having taken place in respect of said mining lease by way of illegal grant of renewal of mining lease; the existing locations boundary pillars being completely different; the sanctioned lease sketch and quantity of iron ore shown to have been produced and dispatched from the mining lease being far in excess quantity that would have physically produced and dispatched from the mining lease area, illegalities having taken place in respect of the mining lease, as indicated above illegalities are also enumerated in the said Report (see Paras 8, 9 and 10 of the Report illegalities are also referred to in the Report dated 27.07.2011 of the Karnataka Lokayukta). On going through the Report of CEC, this Court prima facie is satisfied that at the relevant time there existed linkages between the illegal mining in Bellary Reserved Forest falling in District Anantapur in Andhra Pradesh above mentioned illegalities in Bellary District of Karnataka. It appears from the report that amongst various illegalities, one of the cited illegalities is that the material illegally extracted by M/s. AMC was routed (transported) to the nearest Port in Visakhapatnam through District Anantapur in Andhra Pradesh.” One of the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no allegations have been made against the petitioner in the first and second charge sheets. In the first charge sheet dated 03.12.2011 it is alleged that Sri Gali Janardhan Reddy-A2 had compelled M/s. Mehaboob Transport (M/s. MBT) to sell their excavated mineral at a low cost to M/s. Devi Enterprises, which is owned by the petitioner herein. It is also alleged that the petitioner, who is also the Personal Assistant of A2, had been absconding. It is also alleged that when the house of the petitioner was searched by the Income Tax authorities on 02.11.2010 various records were recovered from his house including the hard disk of the computer of the petitioner having lot of data showing various quantities of iron ore dispatched from different mines in Karnataka as proposed shipment in the account of M/s. OMCPL (A4). Therefore, a reading of first charge sheet makes it clear that it is factually incorrect to say that there is no reference to the role played by the petitioner in the first charge sheet filed by the CBI. The case of the CBI is that the petitioner had been absconding from the date of registration of the case. Look out circulars were issued to secure his presence. As seen from the allegations made against the petitioner in the charge sheet filed against him, he applied for gun license to the District Magistrate on 02.06.2009 mentioning that he is PA to Gali Janardhana Reddy (A2). The Revenue Inspector who recommended the issuance of gun license in his report had also confirmed that the petitioner was PA to Gali Janardhana Reddy (A2). It is also alleged that money was transferred on certain occasions from the account of M/s. OMCPL to the personal account of the petitioner. Several witnesses namely Noor Ahmed, Uppalapati Veera Venkata Satya Prasad, G. Krishna, Mohamad Iqbal and Havinal Mallikarjuna in their statements to CBI alleged that the petitioner/A7 was threatening and pressurizing them to come to their terms in their business activities. Their statements also reveal that those persons were threatened with dire consequences and some of them were also given life threat. The another contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the ingredients of Section 409 IPC are not attracted to the facts of the case. When certain property of the Government is entrusted on lease or when dominion over Government property such as mining area is entrusted to a merchant for his business and if such merchant indulges in illegal mining, such person prima facie seems to have committed criminal breach of trust in respect of that property. When it is alleged that illegal excavations have been carried out violating the terms and conditions of the agreements entered with the Government and when several other lease holders are threatened to sell iron ore at a lower rate it appears that the trust reposed while leasing out the lands for mining operations seems to be criminally breached. But, when it is alleged that the petitioner assisted the accused who indulged in criminal breach of trust or threatened other lease holders to breach the trust reposed in them, it has to be seen whether ingredients of Section 409 read with 109 IPC attracts or not. But, when it is alleged that the petitioner assisted the accused who indulged in criminal breach of trust or threatened other lease holders to breach the trust reposed in them, it has to be seen whether ingredients of Section 409 read with 109 IPC attracts or not. It is for the trial Court to frame or modify the charges having regard to the allegations made against each of the accused. Whether the ingredients of Section 409 IPC have been made out in this case or not has to be decided by the trial Court. The following circumstances reveal that the petitioner is not entitled to bail. (a) The petitioner was threatening several witnesses to come to their terms in their business activities. (b) He was closely associated with Gali Janardhan Reddy (A2) who alleged to have indulged in huge illegal mining violating the rules and established norms. (c) The petitioner was absconding since from the date of registration of the case and look out notices were issued to secure his presence. (d) Investigation with regard to routing of illegal wealth earned from illegal mining activities, investments made by such illegal wealth in India and abroad and the role of other associates of the accused and money given to public servants is still in progress. (e) The prosecution apprehends that the petitioner is likely to influence the witnesses in tampering with the investigation and he may go to the extent of threatening the witnesses. No doubt it is a fact that the petitioner himself surrendered before the CBI Court at Bangalore on 20.03.2012, but it has to be seen that when look out notices were issued against him, he surrendered before the CBI Court. Therefore, it appears that due to the efforts made by the CBI to arrest the petitioner he was compelled to surrender before the Court. (f) The petitioner is an accused in another case before the CBI Court, Bangalore. One of the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that A3 has been enlarged on bail. Merely because some other accused has been enlarged on bail, it cannot be the sole ground to grant bail to the petitioner. It appears that the observations made by the Apex Court in Amaramani Tripathi’s case (2 supra) have to be kept in mind in dealing with this petition. Merely because some other accused has been enlarged on bail, it cannot be the sole ground to grant bail to the petitioner. It appears that the observations made by the Apex Court in Amaramani Tripathi’s case (2 supra) have to be kept in mind in dealing with this petition. In case of grave offences when powerful and influential accused are enlarged on bail, the very presence of such accused may create apprehension in the minds of the witnesses. Such accused with their contacts with other unsocial elements may directly or indirectly threaten or influence the witnesses and the free movement of such accused in the residential locality of important witnesses certainly cause apprehension in the minds of those witnesses about the security and safety of their children and properties. Now a days there is no specific procedure or any special machinery to give protection to the witnesses in this country. In majority of the criminal cases at the time of trial, witnesses are resailing from their original version. Truth is not coming before the Court. The Courts have to acquit the accused in several criminal cases, though serious charges are made. The main reason appears to be the fear of those witnesses about their safety and security. When there is apprehension that the accused may threaten the witnesses and thereby bury the truth, it is not desirable to grant bail to the accused in the interest of justice. The very criminal justice system may collapse, if the witnesses are allowed to be threatened by the criminals. Having regard to the allegations made against the petitioner, as seen from the statements of witnesses recorded at the time of investigation, that he used to threaten those witnesses to come to his terms, it appears that it will not be safe to those witnesses to release the petitioner on bail. At least the possibility of creating fear in the minds of those witnesses cannot be ruled out. In the economic offences, which ruin the national economy, proper investigation has to be conducted. The Investigating Officers have to identify the end beneficiaries and how the ill-gotten money has been routed, secreted or invested in various other business activities. At least the possibility of creating fear in the minds of those witnesses cannot be ruled out. In the economic offences, which ruin the national economy, proper investigation has to be conducted. The Investigating Officers have to identify the end beneficiaries and how the ill-gotten money has been routed, secreted or invested in various other business activities. It appears that mere prosecuting the accused involved in economic offences would not be sufficient, but the entire ill-gotten money in whatever form it is at present has to be recovered and the same has to be ultimately confiscated to the State in the interest of Nation. National interest and interest of the entire society has to be given preference while taking steps to confiscate all such properties acquired with corrupt money. Unless total ill-gotten money is confiscated to the State and all required steps are taken in this regard by the Executive and Legislature, the goals of the Constitution and the main purpose of registering the cases against the economic offenders and conducting investigation would not be achieved. It has to be seen that no economic offender would enjoy the ill-gotten money after the trial, once it is proved that he acquired the same by illegal means. When millions of people of our Nation are suffering with poverty, unemployment and when medical and educational facilities which are basic needs are not available to majority of people in this country it would be unjust, unethical and anti national to allow the economic offenders to enjoy the ill-gotten money. Confiscation of illegally acquired wealth may help to reduce corrupt practices in this Country. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered view that it is not desirable to grant bail to the petitioner/A7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad, is directed to make all efforts to conclude the trial in C.C. No.1 of 2012 pending on his file, as early as possible, by conducting trial on day to day basis.