(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the relevant documents placed before me.
(2.) This is fourth application for grant of bail by the accused-petitioner. His first bail application was dismissed by order of this Court dated 27.4.2011 taking into consideration the merits of the case. His second bail application was dismissed by order dated 20.9.2011. Petitioner then filed third bail application on the premise that co-accused Ram Sahai Chhinnwal against whom also there are 26 cases registered in series of similar offences relating to disbursement of the amount of scholarship to the students of SC and ST has been granted bail by coordinate bench of this Court in bail application no.5863/11 by order dated 29.6.2011, whereas the petitioner was booked in 18 similar instances, all of them were similar in nature and were multiplied though it should have been only one FIR. This Court still dismissed the bail application by order dated 29.8.2012 observing that if the trial is not concluded within six months, petitioner may again apply for bail before the court below. Since the trial was not completed within six months, petitioner has again applied before the trial court, which has dismissed his bail application by order dated 15.4.2013. Hence this bail application.
(3.) Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there are total 46 witnesses against which statement of only four witnesses have been recorded. Petitioner is in jail for last more than two and half years and considering the total number of witnesses, the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. Learned counsel relied on the judgement of Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI - (2012) 1 SCC 40 and argued that the petitioner on the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court, should be enlarged on bail particularly when he is in jail for last more than two and half years and the trial is likely to take many more years to continue.