JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - Heard Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned Additional Advocate General for the State. 2. The petitioner is an accused in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 49/2010, corresponding to Special Case No. 66/10(B), registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 467, 468, 471, 109, 409 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Sections 13(2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. It has been alleged that in the 34th National Games the accused persons including the petitioner by misusing their official positions have committed several acts of misappropriation and embezzlement of public fund by resorting to corrupt practices in connivance and conspiracy of several others. It has been alleged that without inviting tender, work order was allotted and in lieu of that no security was taken. The orders were not given to the lowest bidders but to the highest bidders and on the basis of single tender, work was allotted violating the financial rules. It has further been alleged that the sports materials were purchased at a higher price despite the fact that it was available at a lower price. Excess payments were made towards supply of materials. Further allegations is that some of the work were not approved by the competent authority and in some cases excess payment in the shape of mobilization advance have been made to the suppliers. 4. It has been submitted by Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not named in the First Information Report. He has submitted that the petitioner was a Minister of Sports from 21.05.2008 to 18.01.2009. It has been submitted that the petitioner had merely approved some of the decisions of the Tender Committee, National Games Organizing Committee (in short NGOC) as well as of the Secretary and Director of the Games Committee. He has submitted that most of the accused persons have been released on bail. Further submission has been advanced that investigation has been done for nine years and nothing has been specifically pointed out as to the misappropriation caused by the petitioner. He has submitted that most of the accused persons have been released on bail. Further submission has been advanced that investigation has been done for nine years and nothing has been specifically pointed out as to the misappropriation caused by the petitioner. Reference has also been made to the orders passed by this Court in B.A. No. 1305 of 2015 and B.A. No. 2405 of 2015 which are with respect to the Secretary and Director of NGOC. Specific reference has been made to para 9 and 10 of the said order. Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the final report of the C.B.I. in which permission was sought for to close the investigation against the petitioner. He has submitted that a committee was constituted for purchase and the decision of the committee was approved by the NGOC and then by the petitioner. While referring to the memo of evidence it has been stated that there is no allegation of any wrongful gain. Learned counsel further submits that co-accused Madhukant Pathak who was the treasurer and member of the Tender Committee has also been granted bail in B.A. No. 4871 of 2018. Learned counsel concludes his argument by stating that the petitioner is in custody since 04.09.2019. 5. Countering the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned Additional Advocate General for the State has stated that the petitioner is the king pin of the entire misappropriation and defalcation. He has submitted that the case of the petitioner is not similar to those who have been granted bail by this Court. It has been submitted that the petitioner was the Vice Chairman of the Committee. Mr. Tandon, further submits that investigation has not yet been completed and therefore if the petitioner is granted bail apart from jeopardizing the investigation the same will not secure the ends of justice. Submission has been advanced that the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the closure report of the C.B.I. is misplaced in view of the fact that cognizance has already been taken by the learned court below. In the memo of evidence specific reference has been made to allegation nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Thus it been submitted that the present application is liable to be rejected. 6. Mr. In the memo of evidence specific reference has been made to allegation nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Thus it been submitted that the present application is liable to be rejected. 6. Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in reply has stated that so far as the allegation nos. 5 and 6 are concerned at the relevant point of time the petitioner was not the Minister. 7. It appears that investigation in this case is pending for the last nine years so far as the petitioner is concerned. The Organizing Secretary and the Director of the NGOC have been granted bail by this Court in B.A. No. 1305 of 2015 and B.A. No. 2405 of 2015. While granting bail this Court in the order dated 21.05.2015 passed in B.A. No. 1305 of 2015 had held as follows: "9. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides, I find that though there is allegation of putting the State Exchequer to the wrongful loss of Rs.28,38,09,000/- due to the alleged financial irregularities committed by the petitioners, but the petitioners'' case is that whatever expenses were made, they were made only upon the approval of the Executive Board of the National Games Organising Committee, constituted under the guidelines of the Indian Olympic Association. I also find from the allegations leveled against the petitioners that though there is allegation of placing the orders with the higher bidders ignoring the lowest bidder, but in most of the cases there is no finding by the vigilance that the materials supplied or the services provided were not worth the price paid. 10. In my considered view, in organising the National Games, the prestige of the State was at stake and the time was also running out, and in such situation there may be valid reasons for not strictly adhering to the financial 5 norms, for which the petitioners alone cannot be held responsible, as the decisions were taken by the Executive Board of the National Games Organising Committee. The quality of the materials purchased or the quality of the services provided had to be given paramount consideration in such events and one cannot expect that the orders shall be placed to the lowest bidders only. The quality of the materials purchased or the quality of the services provided had to be given paramount consideration in such events and one cannot expect that the orders shall be placed to the lowest bidders only. In order to make out the criminal offence, there has to be the finding that the quality of the materials / services of the lowest bidders were exactly the same, which were procured by paying the higher price, which finding, is not there in most of the cases discussed in the memo of evidence. Though in some cases it was found, such as in the case of supply of volleyballs that they were duplicate and sub-standard, but the case of the petitioners is that no payment was made to the supplier, and there is no denial to this fact. Similarly, in the matter of construction of squash courts, perhaps the company to which the order was placed, was the only right choice, being perhaps the only company having the required expertise. Similarly, though it is alleged that the ambulances were purchased at almost double the price than they were purchased in the National Games held in Assam, but there is nothing in the record to show that the ambulances purchased in the National Games in Jharkhand were having the same medical and other facilities, as in those purchased during the National Games held at Assam, or they were actually of the higher standard or not. It is not the case of the State Vigilance that the materials purchased paying high prices, were not worth the price paid for them, or that the sports items purchased were below the standard of Olympic games. Last but not the least, there may be allegation of not strictly following the financial rules, but there is no allegation against the petitioners that there was any personal wrongful gain to them in the entire transaction. This apart, the investigation of the case is complete and the charge-sheet has already been submitted, but the cognizance has not yet been taken against the petitioners." 8. This apart, the investigation of the case is complete and the charge-sheet has already been submitted, but the cognizance has not yet been taken against the petitioners." 8. Although learned Additional Advocate General had referred to the memo of evidence and has submitted that it was the petitioner who was the person primarily responsible for the defalcation and misappropriation but it appears that there has been a collective decision with respect to various orders passed and the petitioner seems to have approved some of the decisions of the Tender Committee as well as the NGOC. As quoted above in B.A. No. 1305 of 2015 this Court had specifically taken into consideration each and every aspects of the allegations so far as the Organizing Secretary and the Director of NGOC are concerned and had come to a conclusion that there may be an allegation of not strictly following the financial rules but there is no allegation against those petitioners that there was any personal gains to them in the entire transactions. With respect to the wrongful gains as alleged by virtue of an order passed in W.P.(PIL) No. 4700 of 2008 Vigilance Case No. 9/2009 was transferred to the C.B.I. for investigation. The allegation made in the First Information Report in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 9/2009 was that the petitioner had acquired crores of Rupees as a Minister and had purchased a flat at Vasant Kunj, New Delhi for more than Rupees eight crores for which payment was made by Nagarjun Construction who was constructing the Mega Complex at Ranchi. 9. The petitioner was also alleged to have acquired about hundred acres of land at village Banohra in the name of his near and dear ones and had given undue favour to Simplex/Ramkirpa Singh Construction, which are the Companies constructing the Mega Complex Sports Stadium, Morabadi Ranchi. 10. The C.B.I. in course of investigation has specifically come to a conclusion that the allegations regarding the favours given by the petitioner to the Construction Companies could not be proved. Regarding the acquiring of assets of a property at Vasant Kunj and at village Banohra the same could not be substantiated. Therefore it had come to a conclusion that the assets disproportionate to the known source of income is only to the tune of Rs. 6,28,698/- and it was not a fit case for launching prosecution against the petitioner. Regarding the acquiring of assets of a property at Vasant Kunj and at village Banohra the same could not be substantiated. Therefore it had come to a conclusion that the assets disproportionate to the known source of income is only to the tune of Rs. 6,28,698/- and it was not a fit case for launching prosecution against the petitioner. However, cognizance has been taken by the learned court below on the report of the C.B.I. therefore learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that the report cannot be relied upon. 11. It would also be pertinent to mention herein that another of the co-accused who was a treasurer and member of the Tender Committee of NGOC namely Madhukant Pathak @ Madhu Kant Pathak has also been granted bail by this Court in B.A. No. 4871 of 2018. 12. On consideration of the facts that several of the co- accused persons have been granted bail by this Court and in view of the other facts and circumstances as narrated above, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge,Vigilance, Ranchi in connection with Vigilance P. S. Case No. 49/2010, corresponding to Special Case No. 66/10(B), subject to the condition that one of the bailors must be a close relative of the petitioner. It is further directed that the petitioner shall not leave the country without the permission of the learned trial court and he shall surrender his passport, if any, before the learned court below which shall be deposited in the safe custody of the court below during the pendency of the trial. If the petitioner is not having any passport he shall file an affidavit to that effect in the court below.