RAVINDRA KUMAR RANA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the C.B.I, and also learned counsel for the State of Bihar.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions while making prayer for bail. His first contention is that on 12.9.1996, the petitioner had been taken in custody in connection with another case bearing S.C. No. 24 of 1996, and later on 9-12- 1996, the C.B.I, prayed that he may be remanded in custody in yet another case, but so far as this case is concerned, the C.B.I. made a prayer for remanding the petitioner, in custody only belatedly, on 27-3-1997 and this is a mala fide act on the part of the C.B.I.

(3.) His second contention is that although the main prosecution case is regarding withdrawal of huge amount from the Treasury by different persons either without sanction of that amount or on the basis of forged sanction order and some forged bills, and obtaining the withdrawal amount for supply of materials, which were never supplied by different suppliers, the petitioner is not said to be directly involved either in preparing any bill of withdrawal or forging any bill or sanctioning order, and so he deserves bail.