IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.5341 of 2009 Dr. Kumar Suman Singh @ Ranjit Singh @ Indrajit Singh son of Sri Shyam Sunder Singh, resident of F-62, P.C. Colony, Kankerbagh, Town & District-Patna. ….Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar through CBI …Opp. Party ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Daya Shankar Prasad, Advocate. For the C.B.I. : Mr. Bipin Kumar Sinha, SC, CBI ---------- 2/ 05.05.2009 Heard. This is an application for grant of regular bail filed on behalf of Dr. Kumar Suman Singh @ Ranjit Singh @ Indrajit Singh, who was chargesheeted along with fifteen other accused for the offence under sections 420, 380, 409, 411 of the Indian Penal Code and section 8 & 13(2) read with section 13 (C) & (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in Special Case no.13/2003 corresponding to RC No.24-A of 2003 in connection with the leakage of CBSC(PMF) question paper in 2003. It is submitted by the petitioner that all other accused have been granted bail. It is further pointed out by the petitioner that several applications filed by him for grant of bail were dismissed by the trial court, High Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court and there was direction for speedy trial. Copies of the various orders rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for bail are also produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The last bail application was dismissed by the trial court as the earlier application was dismissed by the High Court. Now, the contention of the petitioner is that he is in jail custody - 2 - since 17th December, 2003, i.e. for about five and half years he is in jail custody. It is further stated that the father of the petitioner is seriously ill with paralytic attack and he wants to take care of him. He has also produced the various medical certificates regarding illness of the father of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that trial is being dragged for some reason or other. Several adjournments were sought for by the CBI due to the inconvenience of the witnesses. It is also submitted that from the evidence of the witnesses already examined and from the documents marked, there is no evidence to connect the petitioner with the allegations in the chargesheet and, therefore, there is no prima facie case. Learned counsel for the C.B.I. submits that charges are very serious and prayer of the petitioner for bail was earlier rejected by this court as well as by the Hon’ble Supreme Court several times. It is further submitted that 34 witnesses have already been examined and more than 30 witnesses are yet to be examined and these witnesses are from all over India and it will take much more time for conclusion of the trial but in view of the grave nature of charges, bail should not be granted to him. It is submitted that the main witnesses are yet to be examined and it cannot be stated from the evidence already adduced that there is no evidence against the petitioner. Any way, that is a matter to be decided by the trial court after the completion of the evidence. In view of submission of counsel for the C.B.I. that thirty witnesses are yet to be examined, they have to be summoned by - 3 - different parts of India, much more time will take in conclusion of trial of the petitioner and that the petitioner has already suffered imprisonment for more than five years, it will take years to complete the trial considering the speed in which the trial is going on, the CBI takes its own time to produce the witnesses, the petitioner can not be imprisoned indefinitely. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of bail. It is found that the bail applications of the petitioner were dismissed by this Court as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court earlier with a direction to speed up the trial but no substantial progress was made in the trial. There is no case of the CBI that the petitioner will abscond if bail is granted. The co-accused were granted bail. The petitioner is in custody for more than five years. There is change in circumstances, in view of the long delay even after the dismissal of the earlier bail matter. The rule of res judicata is not applicable in bail applications. For the above reasons, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner on conditions. Accordingly, petitioner Dr. Kumar Suman Singh @ Ranjit Singh @ Indrajit Singh is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (one lac) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the trial court (Special Judge, CBI, South Bihar, Patna) in connection with Special Case No.13/RC No.24(A)/2003 subject to the conditions that the petitioner will appear on each and every date in the trial court whenever the case is posted, he will not leave the Patna without prior permission from the court concerned and he shall not influence the witnesses in - 4 - any way to be examined in the case. If any of the conditions are not complied with, it is for the C.B.I to approach the court for cancellation of bail of the petitioner. I also direct the trial court to take expeditious steps to complete the trial and the CBI not to protract the proceedings and produce witnesses on the posting dates. The petitioner should also not ask for adjournments and co-operate with the trial. This application stands allowed with the aforesaid directions. JA/- (J. B. Koshy, CJ.)