ORDER 1. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 2. We are not inclined to release the accused appellant on bail. As bail has been granted to the co-accused taking into account the period of custody suffered by the said coaccused and the likely period during which the trial would be completed, we have thought it proper to support our decision for declining bail to the accused appellant with adequate reasons. Hence the leave granted. 3. The offences alleged against the accused appellant are under the various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the maximum punishment for which is ten (10) years. 4. We have perused the charge-sheet and have considered the allegations levelled against the present accused appellant-Shivshankar Bhatt and other co-accused who have been granted bail. 5. The recovery made from the office of the accused appellant is cash amounting to Rs. 1,62,97,500/- (Rupees One crore Sixty two lakh Ninety Seven thousand and Five hundered) which money was found hidden in different office-files. The accused appellant, at the relevant time, was posted as Manager in Nagrik Apurti Nigam. The allegations against the other co-accused are somewhat different and the amount of money recovered is also on the lower side. 6. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the just and appropriate order in the present case would be to direct the learned trial Court to complete the trial as expeditiously as possible and, in any case, within a period of one year from today. If the trial is not completed within the aforesaid period of one year the accused appellant may renew his prayer for bail before the learned trial Court. 7. The appeal is dismissed in the above terms.