JUDGMENT : N. Paul Vasantha Kumar, J. 1. The revision petition is filed challenging the order of rejection of bail application filed by the petitioner in File No. 201/Misc. dated 02.05.2015 whereby the petitioner's bail application has been rejected. The revision petition being not maintainable as the petitioner can only file bail application before this Court under Section 498 Cr.P.C. as the Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Kashmir, Srinagar, has denied the bail, hence we are inclined to dismiss the Criminal Revision petition No. 15/2015 as not maintainable and are constrained to take up the bail application No. 46/2015 for consideration. The case of the petitioner herein is that the Crime Branch Kashmir registered FIR No. 24 of 2013 for offences under Sections 420, 120-B RPC read with Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, SVT. 2006 and the petitioner was arrested on 23.11.2013 and from the said date he is confined to jail as an under trial prisoner. The Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Kashmir, Srinagar, framed charge against 51 accused persons and the petitioner is shown as accused No. 1. All the accused persons except petitioner, have been released on bail by this Court. When the petitioner filed bail application earlier the same was rejected by the Sessions Court as well as by this Court. The said rejection of the bail application having been made before recording of statement of any witness, according to the petitioner subsequently another bail application was filed before the Special Judge Anticorruption, Kashmir, Srinagar, on 20.02.2015 on the ground of his ill health and by stating that out of 78 witnesses, six witnesses were already examined and as of now the petitioner is in jail for about 18 months and due to his old age and illness and the fact that trial will take longer time, the petitioner prayed for releasing him on bail. The Special Judge Anticorruption, Kashmir, Srinagar rejected the bail application on 02.05 2015 by stating various reasons including the seriousness of the allegation made against the petitioner. 2. The Special Judge Anticorruption, Kashmir, Srinagar rejected the bail application on 02.05 2015 by stating various reasons including the seriousness of the allegation made against the petitioner. 2. This application is filed before this Court contending that all the accused persons, except the petitioner, having been released on bail, he is also entitled to be released and as of now the only evidence available against the petitioner is the statement of the approver whose statement in chief was recorded on 06.04.2015 and cross examination was concluded on 02.05.2015 and the trial Court without considering the statement of the approver, rejected the bail application. It is contended that the petitioner is now aged 64 years and he is suffering from diabetes, hypertension unstable angina and is taking continuous medical treatment and the treatment given in the lockup is not sufficient, therefore, he may be released on bail and that the petitioner will not evade the process of law and will not temper the witnesses. 3. Mr. Z.A. Qureshi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated the above grounds and contended that even if the allegations are proved against the petitioner, the maximum punishment of seven years alone can be imposed and petitioner being confined in jail for over 18 months, he may be released on bail taking note of the fact that all other accused have already been released on bail. The learned senior counsel also submitted that the presumption in criminal law is that unless the offence is proved, the accused is presumed to be innocent and the learned Special Judge has not considered the said principle while rejecting the bail application. The learned senior counsel also submitted that age factor as well as the illness of the petitioner was not properly appreciated by the learned Special judge while passing the order and therefore this court may enlarge the petitioner on bail with conditions. The learned senior counsel relied on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in AIR 2012 SC 830 (Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation) and AIR 2014 SC 2756 (Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar) in support of his contentions and prayed for allowing the application seeking bail. 4. Mr. The learned senior counsel relied on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in AIR 2012 SC 830 (Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation) and AIR 2014 SC 2756 (Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar) in support of his contentions and prayed for allowing the application seeking bail. 4. Mr. B.A. Dar, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State, based on the objections filed, submitted that petitioner is involved in hatching criminal conspiracy with co-accused persons which has led to leakage of questions papers of Common Entrance Test 2012 before the same was conducted. The process for conducting the examination was for selecting the meritorious candidates for undergoing the professional courses including MBBS. The matter was taken up by the police pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in a suo moto Public Interest Litigation No. 15/2013 and ultimately FIR No. 24/2013 was registered for commission of offences under Sections 406, 201, 420, 120-B RPC read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The investigation revealed that the petitioner in his capacity as Chairman of BOPEE was the sole custodian of the question papers pertaining to the examination of Common Entrance Test (CET) 2012. The petitioner in furtherance of criminal conspiracy with co-accused had, by abuse of his official position, committed breach of trust and put to sale the question papers before the examination was conducted to confer undue benefit upon himself and the accused beneficiaries. The petitioner along with the co-accused namely Farooq Ahmad Itoo abused his position and handed over the question papers along with answer key to his associate prior to conduct of the CET examination and the co-accused sold the questions papers to other accused beneficiaries for huge consideration which resulted in selection of such candidates who were having average merit. The racket of sale of question papers prior to conduct of CET is lowering the confidence of the public particularly the hard working students and a person indulged in such illegal activities who is facing trial cannot be enlarged on bail. There is clinching evidence to support the prosecution case, namely, handing over of the question papers by the petitioner to the approver at his residence prior to the conduct of the examination for huge consideration and the bail application filed by the approver itself was rejected by this Court. There is clinching evidence to support the prosecution case, namely, handing over of the question papers by the petitioner to the approver at his residence prior to the conduct of the examination for huge consideration and the bail application filed by the approver itself was rejected by this Court. It is further contended that the trial of the criminal case is at the initial stage and if the petitioner, who is the prime accused, is enlarged on bail at this stage there is every likelihood that he will influence the prosecution witnesses. 5. The learned Additional Advocate General reiterated the said stand and vehemently opposed the bail application by contending that out of 78 witnesses only 6 have been examined and remaining 72 witnesses are yet to be examined and if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he will try to win over the witnesses which will hamper the trial of the criminal case. He has also submitted that 29 undeserving candidates were able to get selection in MBBS course 2012-2013 and the selection of those 29 candidates was also cancelled by this Court. Learned counsel also submitted that other accused were released on bail by considering their lesser part in the criminal conspiracy and the petitioner being the prime accused cannot compare his case with other accused persons who are either students or the parents of the students. Learned Additional Advocate General also argued that the petitioner has amazed huge wealth due to the question paper leak scam and the prosecution has found concrete proof of the same during investigation. 6. Mr. B.A. Bashir learned Amicus, appearing in the PIL, also supported the submissions of the learned Additional Advocate General. He opposed the bail application of the petitioner by submitting that since the petitioner was holding a high level post in the State of J & K and functioned as Chairman BOPEE, he is an influential person having the potential to win over the prosecution witnesses or giving threat to the witnesses. 7. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the facts pleaded before us. 8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is ranking as accused No. 1 in FIR No. 24/2013. After the investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Special Judge Anticorruption, Kashmir, Srinagar on 12.03.2015. 7. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the facts pleaded before us. 8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is ranking as accused No. 1 in FIR No. 24/2013. After the investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Special Judge Anticorruption, Kashmir, Srinagar on 12.03.2015. The alleged sale of question papers of CET 2012 Examination came to light only after the High Court issued notice in suo moto PIL No. 15/2013 and ordered enquiry into the matter. The offences alleged against the petitioner are very serious and it has got very serious effect on the society particularly selection of the students for MBBS course who will become medical practitioners and who are bound to take care of the health of the residents of Jammu and Kashmir and other parts of the country. If undeserving persons are selected for MBBS course and other professional courses by way of corrupt practices, the rights of the meritorious students will be affected and it would be treated as promoting dishonesty. The examinations conducted for CET/admission should be foolproof and public must not lose faith in the examination system and the allegations leveled against the petitioner, who was the Chairman of BOPEE and was doing all things in the absence of Controller of Examinations, are very serious and are required to be tried in a criminal court in a fair manner. Any attempt to win over the witnesses or giving room for threatening the witnesses of any such kind will jeopardize the trial and ultimately the accused persons will be in a position to get acquitted. The said issue has to be borne in mind while deciding the grant of bail of the case of this nature. Admittedly out of 78 witnesses only 6 have been examined. Though bail is a rule and jail is an exception, if the accused persons are enlarged on bail whether they will be in a position to influence/threaten the witnesses and whether they will be in a position to evade the process of law, has to be the prime consideration while deciding the bail application. 9. Hon'ble Supreme Court considered a similar bail application of the accused persons of "Vyapam" which has occurred in the State of Madhya Pradesh in the decision reported in 2015 AIR SCW 1052 Dr. Vinod Bhandari v. State of M.P.). 9. Hon'ble Supreme Court considered a similar bail application of the accused persons of "Vyapam" which has occurred in the State of Madhya Pradesh in the decision reported in 2015 AIR SCW 1052 Dr. Vinod Bhandari v. State of M.P.). In the said judgment it is held that the offence is of high magnitude indicating illegal admission to large number of undeserving candidates in medical courses by corrupt means. The offence has the potential of undermining the trust of the people in the integrity of the medical profession itself. If undeserving candidates are admitted to medical courses by corrupt means, not only the society will be deprived of the best brains treating the patients, the patients will be faced with undeserving and corrupt persons treating them in whom they will find it difficult to repose faith When the allegations are supported by material on record and there is a potential of trial being adversely influenced by grant of bail, seriously jeopardizing the interest of justice, there will be no ground to grant bail and the Hon'ble Supreme Court up held the rejection of bail application of the accused person and affirmed the said order passed by Madhya Pradesh High Court. 10. The decision relied upon by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, namely, AIR 2012 SC 830 , was cited before Hon'ble the Supreme Court and very point was stressed. After noticing the magnitude of the scam, Hon'ble the Supreme Court dismissed the bail application even though the accused therein was under custody for more than one year. It was held thus:- "8. Main contention advanced on behalf of the appellant is that the appellant has already been in custody for about one year and there is no prospect of commencement of trial in the near future. Even investigation is not likely to be completed before March 15, 2015. There are about 516 accused and large number of witnesses and documents. Thus, the trial will take long time. In these circumstances the appellant cannot be kept in custody for indefinite period before his guilt is established by acceptable evidence. Even investigation is not likely to be completed before March 15, 2015. There are about 516 accused and large number of witnesses and documents. Thus, the trial will take long time. In these circumstances the appellant cannot be kept in custody for indefinite period before his guilt is established by acceptable evidence. Our attention has been invited to order dated 27th November, 2014 passed by the trial Court, recording the request of the Special Public Prosecutor for deferring the proceedings of the case till the cases of other accused against whom supplementary charge sheets were filed were committed to the Court of Session and till supplementary charge sheet was filed against several other accused persons. In the said order, the Court directed the Investigating Officer to indicate as to against how many accused persons investigation is pending and the time frame for filing charge sheets/supplementary charge sheets. In response to the said order, the Investigating Officer, vide letter dated 25th December, 2014 filed before the trial Court, stated that 329 persons had already been arrested and 187 were yet to be arrested and efforts were being made to file the charge sheets by March 15, 2015 in compliance of the directions of this Court. Thus, the submission on behalf of the appellant is that in view of delay in trial, the appellant was entitled to bail. 11. The facts in the said case and the facts of this case are identical. The corruption in a civilized society has to be seriously viewed which dictum is laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the following decisions:- In the decision reported in (2000) 5 SCC 88 (State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. v. Ram Singh), in paragraph 8 Hon'ble the Supreme Court held thus:- "8. Corruption in a civilized society is a disease like cancer, which if not detected in time is sure to malignise the polity of country leading to disastrous consequences. It is termed as plague which is not only contagious but if not controlled spreads like a fire in a jungle. Its virus is compared with HIV leading to AIDS, being incurable. It has also been termed as Royal thievery. The socio-political system exposed to such a dreaded communicable disease is likely to crumble under its own weight. Corruption is opposed to democracy and social order, being not only anti people, but aimed and targeted against them. Its virus is compared with HIV leading to AIDS, being incurable. It has also been termed as Royal thievery. The socio-political system exposed to such a dreaded communicable disease is likely to crumble under its own weight. Corruption is opposed to democracy and social order, being not only anti people, but aimed and targeted against them. It affects the economy and destroys the cultural heritage. Unless nipped in the bud at the earliest, it is likely to cause turbulence shaking of the socio-economic-political system in an otherwise healthy, wealthy, effective and vibrating society." In the decision reported in 2009 (1) Supreme 458 (Surain Singh v. State of Punjab), Hon'ble the Supreme Court considered the seriousness of corruption in public service and in paragraph 7 held thus:- "7. Day in and day out the gigantic problem of corruption in the public servants is on the increase. Large scale corruption retards the nation building activities and everyone has to suffer on that count. Corruption is corroding like cancerous lymph nodes, the vital veins of the body politics, social fabric of efficiency in the public service and demoralizing the honest officers. The efficiency in public service would improve only when the public servant devotes his sincere attention and does the duty diligently, truthfully, honestly and devotes himself assiduously to the performance of the duties of his post. (See: Swatantar Singh v. State of Haryana ( 1997 (4) SCC 14 ) and State of M.P. v. Shambhu Dayal Nagar ( 2002 (1) SCC 1 )." 12. Applying the said principles to the facts of this case we are not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The bail application is dismissed. 13. The contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that petitioner is not doing well and is taking treatment, can be taken care of by the jail authorities by giving best treatment to the petitioner. If there is any laxity on the part of the jail authorities in extending medical treatment to the petitioner, it is always open for the petitioner to approach the Special Judge Anticorruption, Kashmir, Srinagar, for getting appropriate directions in this regard. If there is any laxity on the part of the jail authorities in extending medical treatment to the petitioner, it is always open for the petitioner to approach the Special Judge Anticorruption, Kashmir, Srinagar, for getting appropriate directions in this regard. Considering the importance of the matter in issue which arose in the year 2012, we direct the Special Judge Anticorruption, Kashmir, Srinagar, to conduct the trial of Criminal Challan No. 42/B dated 12.01.2014 on day to day basis and complete the same in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If the prosecution or the accused persons are not co-operating for day to day conduct of the trial, it is open for the Special Judge Anticorruption, Kashmir, Srinagar to compel the presence of the accused persons and the witnesses in accordance with law. The Special Judge Anticorruption, Kashmir, Srinagar is directed to sent the report after completing the trial to the registry of this Court, as directed above, by the end of February, 2016.