JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Mr. Prashant Pallava, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). 2. The petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with RC- 12(A)/2017-R, for the offence registered under sections 406/409/420/120B IPC and section 13(2)/13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act), pending in the court of learned Special Judge-II, C.B.I. (Other than AHD Scam Cases), Ranchi. 3. The aforesaid R.C. Case has been registered alleging therein that a complaint Ref.No.AGM/GEN/15/129 dated 20.11.2017 has been received from Shri Jasbir Singh, Asstt General Manager, State Bank of India, Hatia Branch, Dhurwa, Ranchi-834004 alleging therein that No.33954815459 of Jharkhand Rajya Madhayan Bhojan Prdhikaran Account is maintained at State Bank of India, Hatia Branch, Ranchi on 05.08.2017, State Bank of India, Hatia Branch received 6 debit advices from the Department “Jharkhand Rajya Madhayan Bhojan Prdhikaran”, Govt. of Jharkhand for transfer of Rs.120.31 Crores from their Saving Bank Account to multiple accounts maintained with different banks including State Bank of India. As per the advice, Rs.20.29 Crores was to be transferred to State Bank of India account and Rs.100,01,41,016/-(Rs.100.01 crores) was to be transferred to other Bank accounts. For bulk transfer through Real Time Gross Settlement/National Electronic Fund Transfer (RTGS/NEFT), Rs.100.01 crores was debited from Saving Bank Account of Jharkhand Rajya Madhayan Bhojan Prdhikaran and temporarily parked in office/suspense Account of the Branch for processing of transfer through NEFT/RTGS to various accounts. Due to failure in uploading, the entire amount of Rs.100.01 crores got returned to the office/Suspense Account of the Branch. Due to failure in uploading, the entire amount of Rs.100.01 crores got returned to the office/Suspense Account of the Branch. It is further alleged that Shri Ajay Oraon, the then Deputy Manager (Business Development Department), State Bank of India, Hatia Branch, Ranchi (under suspension), instead of crediting back the amount of Rs.100.01 Crores to the Saving Bank Account of Jharkhand Rajya Madhyan Bhojan Pradhikarnarn from office/suspense account of the branch, with gross negligence and without applying due diligence dishonestly and by abusing his official position as a public servant, prepared, posted and authorized the transfer of almost entire amount of Rs.100.01 Crores to the Current Account No.36310149578 of M/s. Bhanu Construction and Shri Sanjay Kumar Tiwari and Shri Suresh Kumar both partners of M/s. Bhanu Construction dishonestly transferred the said amount to their various accounts and utilized/misappropriated the same by keeping it as liquid security/margin for the credit facility extended to them by Axis Bank Ltd., Ashok Nagar, Ranchi, HDFC Bank Ltd., Ashok Nagar Branch, SREI Equipment Finance Ltd., Ranchi, Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd., Ranchi. It is further alleged in the complaint that out of Rs.100.01 Crores, State Bank of India, Hatia Branch, Ranchi has managed to recover/restore a sum of Rs.76,29,13,000/- till 20.11.2017 from various accounts with different banks and Rs.23,72,28,016 could not be restored from M/s. Bhanu Construction which resulting wrongful loss to the State Bank of India, Hatia Branch, Ranchi and corresponding wrongful gain to M/s. Bhanu Construction. The aforesaid facts prima facie discloses the commission of cognizable offence against (1) Shri Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, Partner of M/s. Bhanu Construction, R/o. Flat No. 1008, 10th Floor, Vasundara Enclave, Argora Chowk. Ranchi (2) Shri Suresh Kumar, Partner of M/s. Bhanu Construction, R/o 2nd Floor, Basanti Residency, Shivdayal Nagar, Argora, Ranchi, (3) M/s. Bhanu Construction, Partnership Firm, (4) Ajay Oraon, the then Dy. Manager (Development Banking Deptt), State Bank of India, Hatia Branch, Ranchi and others and therefore, a Regular Case is registered against (1) Shri Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, Partner of M/s Bhanu Construction, R/o, Flat No.1008, 10th Floor, Vasundara Enclave, Argora Chowk, Ranchi, (2) Shri Suresh Kumar, Partner of M/s. Bhanu Construction, R/o 2nd Floor, Basanti Residency, Shivdayal Nagar, Argore, Ranchi, (3) M/s. Bhanu Construction, Partnership Firm, (4) Ajay Oraon, the then Dy. Manager (Development Banking Deptt), State Bank of India, Hatia Branch, Ranchi and others U/s 120B r/w 406, 409, 420 of IPC and Sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 and investigation is endorsed to Shri Amit Kumar, Inspector, CBI, ACB, Ranchi. The original letter of complaint vide No.AGM/GEN/15/129 dated 20.11.2017 of Shri Jasbir Singh, Asstt. General Manager, State Bank of India, Hatia Branch, Ranchi is attached herewith in original as a part and parcel of this FIR. 4. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has earlier moved before this Court in A.B.A No.6218 of 2019 in which the petitioner was granted privilege of anticipatory bail provisionally on certain terms and conditions by order dated 06.09.2019 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court and subsequently the petitioner has moved in Cr.M.P. No.2235 of 2019 but the same was dismissed for non-prosecution by order dated 22.06.2023 by a coordinate Bench of this Court and thereafter the petitioner has moved in W.P.(Cr.) No.371 of 2019 which was dismissed by order dated 26.08.2020. Thereafter, the petitioner again moved in Cr.M.P. No.1618 of 2020 and the same was dismissed as withdrawn by an order dated 17.08.2020 and again the petitioner has filed B.A. No.8427 of 2022 which was rejected by the order dated 10.11.2022. The petitioner again moved before this Court in B.A. No.1564 of 2024 which was further rejected vide order dated 27.06.2024. He further submits that against the order dated 27.06.2024 the petitioner has moved before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.11688 of 2024 which was dismissed by the order dated 06.09.2024, however, it was observed that the liberty was provided to the petitioner to file a fresh application for grant of bail before the trial court in case of change in circumstances or if the trial does not proceed expeditiously for reasons not attributable to the petitioner. 5. In the above background, he submits that the petitioner has again moved before the learned trial court by way of filing regular bail petition which has been rejected by the impugned order. He submits that the reasons of filing said petition was due to change in the circumstance. He submits that the petitioner was arrested in PMLA case on 23.11.2021 wherein he was remanded in connection with the present case on 27.05.2022 and since then he is continuously in jail. He submits that the reasons of filing said petition was due to change in the circumstance. He submits that the petitioner was arrested in PMLA case on 23.11.2021 wherein he was remanded in connection with the present case on 27.05.2022 and since then he is continuously in jail. According to him, the petitioner is in custody for three years and two months, except four weeks when he was on interim bail granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He further submits that in the charge sheet, the CBI has shown 45 witnesses to be examined in the trial, however, till date, only seven witnesses have been examined and in view of that, there is delay in the proceeding of the trial, and as such, the petition has been filed and the learned court has rejected the same. On this ground, he submits that the bail application was filed, however, it has been erroneously rejected. He submits that in the identical situation, Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted bail to one Prem Prakash in Special Leave to Appeal (Cr.) No.5416 of 2024 and he placed reliance on paragraph no.46 of the said judgment in the case of Prem Prakash v. Union of India, through the Directorate of Enforcement. By way of relying on the above judgment, he submits that Prem Prakash was languishing in jail for over one year and Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted bail. He further submits that Prem Prakash was further granted bail in another case being Prem Prakash v. Union of India in S.L.P. (Cr.) No.691 of 2023 by the order dated 04.10.2024. The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has further relied in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 and refers to paragraph nos.21 and 23 of the said judgment, which is as under: “ 21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. 23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson.” 6. The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submits that the co-accused namely, Ajay Oraon has been granted regular bail in B.A. No.8703 of 2019 by order dated 04.12.2019 by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 7. Relying on the above judgment, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is on identical footing and in view of that, the petitioner may kindly be enlarged on regular bail. He further draws attention of the Court to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner and submits that substantial amount has already been recovered from the petitioner and the document to that effect has been brought on record. According to him, the bank account of the petitioner has been seized and the amount has been recovered and even one of the fixed- deposit amount has also been recovered. He submits that only a meager amount less than Rs.One crore is remaining. In the aforesaid background, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the regular bail application may kindly be allowed. He submits that only a meager amount less than Rs.One crore is remaining. In the aforesaid background, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the regular bail application may kindly be allowed. He submits that one of the ground is taken in the counter affidavit by the C.B.I that the petitioner has produced forged Covid-19 Certificate before the learned court for grant of bail and in light of paragraph no.23 of the said judgment, in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation (supra) of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, that point is not available to the C.B.I. He further submits that the Bank has already moved a petition in light of Section 19 of RECOVERY OF DEBTS DUE TO BANKS AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ACT , 1993 and according to him, when the said provision of the RECOVERY OF DEBTS DUE TO BANKS AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ACT , 1993 has already been invoked by the Bank, the matter is arising out of civil nature, and in view of that, the criminal liability is wrongly fastened upon the petitioner. On these grounds, he submits that the regular bail to the petitioner may kindly be allowed. 8. Per contra, Mr. Prashant Pallav, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI) opposed the prayer for bail and submits that recently the co-ordinate Bench by the order dated 27.06.2024 has rejected the application for bail of the petitioner and against which the petitioner has moved before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which has already been rejected. He submits that on merit, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has already dismissed the petition, however, only on the point of liberty to file fresh bail application, in the nature of allegations made against the petitioner, the prayer for bail may kindly be rejected. He submits that the petitioner is the partner in M/s Bhanu Construction, wherein an amount to the tune of Rs.100 Crores 1 Lac 41 Thousand and Sixteen has been transferred and the said amount was meant for Mid-Day Meal Scheme, and the said Scheme is being run in the name of Jharkhand Rajya Madhyan Bhojan Pradhikaran. He submits that the petitioner is the partner in M/s Bhanu Construction, wherein an amount to the tune of Rs.100 Crores 1 Lac 41 Thousand and Sixteen has been transferred and the said amount was meant for Mid-Day Meal Scheme, and the said Scheme is being run in the name of Jharkhand Rajya Madhyan Bhojan Pradhikaran. He submits that the allegation against the petitioner is very serious and the petitioner’s conduct is further required to be considered in view of the fact that the petitioner has produced the forged Covid-19 Certificate for the purpose of taking bail from the learned trial court. He submits that it has been disclosed in the affidavit that the C.B.I will conclude the evidence by March, 2026. He submits that there is every chance that the trial will be concluded by March, 2026 and seeing the conduct of the petitioner, the bail may not be granted to the petitioner. 9. It is an admitted position that the petitioner has moved in several petitions; either by way of filing Anticipatory Bail Applications, Cr.M.Ps. or Bail Applications, and two of the bail applications filed by the petitioner have already been rejected by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court and against the order dated 27.06.2024, the Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.11688 of 2024 has been preferred, which has been rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, an observation was made to move before the learned trial court if there is any change in circumstances. The petitioner is the partner of M/s Bhanu Construction and Suresh Kumar is an another partner of the said firm being M/s Bhanu Construction. The Savings Bank Account of the Jharkhand Rajya Madhyan Bhojan Pradhikaran is being maintained by the State Bank of India [S.B.I), Hatia Branch, Ranchi and the amount to the tune of Rs.100 Crores 1 Lac 41 Thousand and Sixteen has been transferred to the Bank Account of M/s Bhanu Construction. It has come in the investigation that the petitioner herein has utilized the said amount in his luxury and he has purchased vehicle, made payment of insurance premium and utilized the same in repayment of dues using the amount which was meant for Mid-Day Meal under the said Scheme of the Government of Jharkhand. It has come in the investigation that the petitioner herein has utilized the said amount in his luxury and he has purchased vehicle, made payment of insurance premium and utilized the same in repayment of dues using the amount which was meant for Mid-Day Meal under the said Scheme of the Government of Jharkhand. It appears that the petitioner has been granted anticipatory bail provisionally in A.B.A. No.6218 of 2019 on certain conditions and it was ordered that if the conditions will not be fulfilled, the petitioner’s provisional anticipatory bail will be cancelled. The petitioner has taken that provisional bail on the ground that he will deposit Rs.8,17,50,000/- with the S.B.I., Hatia Branch after that order and will further deposit Rs.4,08,75,000/-. On this ground, the co-ordinate Bench has granted the provisional anticipatory bail, however, it further transpires that the said condition has not been fulfilled and in view of that the provisional anticipatory bail of the petitioner has been cancelled in terms of the order passed by the co- ordinate Bench. It has been pointed out that the petitioner was granted interim bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for four weeks and when he has surrendered before the learned court, the petitioner has produced the forged Covid-19 Certificate. In view of these facts, the Court has to consider as to whether the petitioner, who is having such a mind-set, is fit to be released on regular bail even on the ground that the co-accused have been granted regular bail, or not? The matters to be considered in an application for bail are whether; (i) there is any prima-facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused has committed the offence; (ii) the nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) the severity of punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of accused absconding or fleeing on being 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 witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. 10. 10. While a vague allegation that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses may not be a ground for refusal of bail, however, if the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is materials to show that he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail is required to be refused. This aspect has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P., Through C.B.I. v. Amarmani Tripathi reported in (2005) 8 SCC 21 . 11. What has been discussed hereinabove, the petitioner, by way of submitting that he will deposit certain amount with the Bank, the provisional anticipatory bail was granted by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. However, the said undertaking before the Court was not complied with and in view of that the provisional anticipatory bail of the petitioner has been cancelled. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further granted the petitioner interim bail and the petitioner by way of forged Covid-19 Certificate, has tried to further obtain bail from the learned trial court which clearly suggest that the petitioner, in either way, or by any means, seeks to obtain bail. 12. The allegation against the petitioner is serious in nature and Mid-Day Meal account has been misappropriated. There is no doubt that even if the allegation is one of grave economic offence, it is not a rule that the bail should be denied in every case since there is no such bar under the relevant enactment passed by the Legislature nor does the bail jurisprudence provides so, as has been discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement reported in (2020) 13 SCC 791 , but at the same time, the consideration will have to be on case to case basis, on the facts involved therein and seeking the presence of the accused, to stand trial. The bail is being granted on certain conditions in appropriate cases and the object of putting such conditions should be to avoid the possibility by the person hampering the investigation. The conduct of the petitioner and further the charge against the petitioner is required to be considered. The bail is being granted on certain conditions in appropriate cases and the object of putting such conditions should be to avoid the possibility by the person hampering the investigation. The conduct of the petitioner and further the charge against the petitioner is required to be considered. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the economic offence in the case of “ Subrata Chattoraj v. Union of India reported in (2014) 8 SCC 768 , “ Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. C.B.I. reported (2013) 7 SCC 439 and in the case of “ Union of India v. Hassan Ali Khan ” reported in (2011) 10 SCC 235 and the gist of those judgments speak of that economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as a grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. This Court is conscious of the fact that the bail is the rule and denial of bail is exception, however, in the facts and circumstance of each case, that has to be considered by the Court. 13. The judgment relied by learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in the case of Prem Prakash v. Union of India(supra) was decided in the facts and circumstances of that case. In that case, the petitioner was in custody for over one year and the trial was not yet commenced and, in that background, the said order was passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. So far as the present case is concerned, in which the petitioner is in custody, the trial has already been proceeded and seven witnesses have been examined. In course of the argument, it has been pointed out by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent C.B.I. that by March, 2026, the prosecution will adduce all the evidences and even the C.B.I is considering to reduce the number of the witnesses to be produced before the learned court. Ajay Oraon, who is co-accused, has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in B.A. No.8703 of 2019 considering that this petitioner has been granted provisional anticipatory bail. Ajay Oraon, who is co-accused, has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in B.A. No.8703 of 2019 considering that this petitioner has been granted provisional anticipatory bail. So far as Ajay Oraon is concerned, further the allegation against Ajay Oraon of producing the forged certificate and not complying with any of the condition on which the provisional bail has been obtained, was not there. The petitioner herein has taken anticipatory bail submitting that certain amount will be deposited which has not been complied with and thereafter, the provisional bail of the petitioner was cancelled. Further, by way of producing forged Covid-19 Certificate the petitioner tried to obtain bail. The case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation (supra) was decided in the facts and circumstances of that case and the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court therein, and in that case also it has been observed, that upon only the belief that the accused will temper with the evidences if he is left with liberty and further in only extra circumstances the bail should be denied. 14. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the conduct of the petitioner clearly suggest that the petitioner will temper with the evidence once liberty is granted, cannot be ruled out, and it is further well-settled that the judgments are applicable in the facts and circumstances of each case. 15. Considering that the C.B.I. has disclosed on affidavit that by March, 2026, the trial will be concluded and further the C.B.I is trying to reduce the number of witnesses to be produced before the learned trial court, and seeing the conduct of the petitioner, the gravity of the charge and tampering with the evidences if the petitioner will put at liberty, he will not influence the witnesses cannot be ruled out as such, this Court is not inclined to grant this petitioner regular bail, at this stage, and hence, the prayer for regular bail of this petitioner is, hereby, rejected. 16. However, it is open to the petitioner that if the trial is not concluded by March, 2026, the petitioner may renew is prayer for bail.