IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.4290 of 2010 SUNIL KUMAR GUPTA SON OF LATE BINDESHWARI PRASAD GUPTA, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-BARDANI TOLA, P.S. AKORHI GOLA, DISTRICT-ROHTAS. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR THRU. CBI. ----------- 3. 16.3.2010. Heard Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Bipin Kumar Sinha, learned Standing Counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation. The petitioner, who is in custody in R.C. No.6(A) of 2008 corresponding to Special Case4 No.5 of 2008 for the offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, has prayed for grant of bail. While pressing the bail petition, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that besides merit of the case, on sympathetic ground, petitioner may be enlarged on bail. He submits that twice open heart surgery of this petitioner has been conducted and his health condition is not up to mark to allow him to be confined inside jail. Learned counsel for the petitioner - 2 - submits that petitioner is in jail since 31.8.2009. Learned counsel for the C.B.I. submits that in this case, after submission of charge sheet, police papers have already been supplied to the petitioner. I have also examined the materials available on record. Allegation against the petitioner is that in the capacity of Sub Post Master, Rajpur Post Office in between 2006 and 2007, he by forgery documents mis- appropriated the government fund to the tune of Rs.80 lakhs and odd. It also appears that government examiner of question document has confirmed the writing and signature of the petitioner on the document. Since in the present case, police papers have already been supplied, it is expected that hearing on charge, matter would be concluded within a period of one month. Thereafter, the prosecution is directed to produce witnesses regularly. The learned Special Judge,C.B.I., South Bihar, Patna is directed to continue with the trial on day to day basis. However, if the trial is not - 3 - N.H./ concluded within a period of five months from the date of charge, the petitioner shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail with a condition that directly or indirectly, the petitioner may not linger the conclusion of trial only with a view to circumvent this order. With above observation and direction, the petition stands rejected. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)