IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.35763 of 2008 SHIVENDRA SAHAY Versus STATE OF BIHAR THRU.C.B.I. ----------- 4. 8.12.2008 Heard Sri Prem Kumar Jha, Advocate for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State. The prosecution case as it appears was that the petitioner, a contractor did not have any agreement for doing any work but still acting in connivance with the officials of the B.S.N.L., presented bills 15 in number with forged signatures of the authorities indicating the work to the tune of Rs.32,59,238/-. Thus the allegation boils down to falsification of accounts in order to misappropriated public money. The contention is that most of the officials and contractors have been admitted to bail by different Benches of this Court after they had spent some period of custody ranging from two months from 11 months or a year. The contention further is that the officer who had the responsibility of passing the bill and making the payment also have been admitted to bail and the petitioner claims having a contract - 2 - through a written agreement in his favour as also of doing the work and as such presenting legitimate bills. The orders annexed as Annexures-5 to 10, indicate that other accused persons of the case have been admitted to bail by different Benches of this Court. However, I respectfully deviate from the judicial discipline of following the orders and it could take a different view by recording that I cannot, under the circumstance and in the facts of directing the release of the petitioner on bail. Petition is dismissed. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )