JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection to Vigilance P.S Case No.42 of 2013 corresponding to Special Case No.45 of 2013 which was registered on 16.11.2013. 2. It is stated that investigation in the case is still pending. 3. Under section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 time for investigation as provided under section 57 is 24 hours, but investigation in this case has not been completed even after more than 5 1/2 years. 4. One wonders if in the last 51/2 years sufficient material has not been collected by the investigating agency to sent-up the present petitioner for trial in how many years they expect to find out some material against the accused person. 5. This is a serious matter pertaining to administration of criminal justice system. 6. On merits, in the affidavit dated 08.05.2019 the Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Dhanbad has stated that the order granting anticipatory bail to other co-accused persons have not been challenged by the Anti-Corruption Bureau. No reason has been disclosed in the affidavit dated 08.05.2019 still an effort has been made to distinguish the case of the present petitioner with other accused persons. I find that in paragraph no.5 of the affidavit dated 08.05.2019, it is admitted that several other accused persons namely, Narendra Kumar Mishra, Romod Narayan Jha and Tantra Nath Jha who were also holding official positions and said to have misused their official positions causing huge wrongful loss of the government of Jharkhand, have been granted anticipatory bail, still prayer for anticipatory bail made by this petitioner is sought to be resisted on the ground that he has abused his official position and caused wrongful loss to the government of Jharkhand. 7. Least to say, this affidavit is only for the sake of opposing this application for anticipatory bail. 8. By an order dated 06.05.2016, interim protection was granted to the petitioner by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. There is no allegation of misuse of interim protection granted to the petitioner vide order dated 06.05.2016. 7. Least to say, this affidavit is only for the sake of opposing this application for anticipatory bail. 8. By an order dated 06.05.2016, interim protection was granted to the petitioner by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. There is no allegation of misuse of interim protection granted to the petitioner vide order dated 06.05.2016. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is hereby ordered that the petitioner namely,Vinod Kumar @ Binod Kumar on his surrender before the court below within four weeks shall be released on bail on executing two sureties of Rs.50000/- each with further conditions that as and when his presence is required by the investigating officer or the court he shall make himself present before the authority/court. 9. Considering the substantial question of pubic importance involved in this case; whether investigation into the matters of corruption by the public servant can go on for years together and, that too, in the teeth of specific directions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in various judgments, the Registry is directed to register a suo-motu ''Public Interest Litigation'' and place the matter before an appropriate Division Bench. 10. Issue notice to the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, the Home Secretary and the Director-General, Anti-Corruption Bureau. 11. Separate affidavits shall be filed by these authorities. 12. The Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Government of Jharkhand shall produce a list of cases pending investigation and give status of the investigation, case-wise. 13. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the court concerned through ''Fax''.