IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.5929 of 2008 DR.KUMAR SUMAN SINGH @ RANJIT SINGH @ INDRAJIT SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR THRO.C.B.I. ----------- 2. 30.09.2008 This is an application for bail of Dr. Suman Singh @ Ranjit Singh @ Indrajit Singh who stands charge sheeted for the offence under Section 420, 380, 409 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 18 and 13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act under special case No.13/2003/RC- 24(A)/2003 in the Court of Special Judge, C.B.I., Patna. The matter relates to alleged conspiracy, cheating, pilferage and selling of CBSE/Government of India/Medical college admission examination on realization of huge sum of money. The bail prayer of this petitioner was earlier rejected for the fist time by this Court vide order dated 24.3.2004 under Cr. Misc. No. 7370 of 2004 on the grounds as detailed in the order. Thereafter, the petitioner’s prayer for bail has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 24.6.2005 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 17642 of 2005, order dated 20.2.2006 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 879 of 2006, order dated 24.6.2004 under Cr. Misc. No. 17198 of 2004 and lastly by order dated 21.3.2007 under Cr. Misc. No. 12438 of 2007. It has to be mentioned here that after rejection of the petitioner’s bail prayer by this Court on 21.3.2007 under Cr. Misc. No. 12438 of 2007, the petitioner moved SLP before Hon’ble Supreme Court. But vide order dated 16.4.2007 as passed under SLA (Crl.) No. 2045 of 2007 the petitioner’s prayer for bail was rejected by the - 2 - Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is after rejection of petitioner’s prayer for bail as above by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the petitioner has preferred the instant bail application before this Court. At the outset a point was raised by the C.B.I. that when the bail prayer of the petitioner has been rejected by Hon’ble Supreme Court on merit this court should not entertain such prayer. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that co-accused Ajay Kumar Singh who was the Manager of the Bank being custodian of the question paper and who happen to be the important accused of the case has been allowed bail by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.2.2007 under Cr. Misc. No. 46583 of 2006. The learned counsel also submitted that co-accused Manoj Kumar has also been allowed bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 6.5.2005 under Cr. Appeal No. 675 of 2005 and that the case of the petitioner stands on better footing. Hear, the learned counsel for the C.B.I. replies that after grant of bail to petitioner Manoj Kumar by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as aforesaid the petitioner had filed SLA No. 3182 of 2005 which was rejected on 21.7.2005. Then the petitioner filed SLA(Crl.) No.1190 of 2006 which was rejected on 10.5.2006 and thereafter the petitioner filed SLA No.2045 of 2007 which was rejected on 16.4.2007. The learned counsel for the C.B.I. replied that bail prayer of accused Ajay Kumar Singh was pending before this Court, hence, it was considered by this Court for grant of bail. So far the petitioner is concerned, the learned standing counsel submitted that the prayer has - 3 - been refused by a higher Court i.e. the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 17.12.2003 i.e. for four years and nine months but the trial has not concluded and only 29 witnesses have been examined in the case. The learned counsel tried to impress with the provision under Article 21 of the Constitution of India relating right of accused for speedy trial and submitted that the valuable right of the petitioner to get speedy trial has been violated as according to the learned counsel 37 witnesses are yet to be examined. The learned counsel for the C.B.I. replied that so far the right of the petitioner as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is concerned, the petitioner has already filed a CRWJC No.414 of 2008 praying for a mandamus for speedy trial. It is also submitted that C.B.I. has already filed its counter affidavit and on 16.9.2008 an adjournment has been allowed at the instance of the petitioner. Thus hearing both sides and considering that the bail prayer of the petitioner has already been rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on hearing of the matter and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no scope to grant bail in this. Therefore, prayer is rejected. (C.M. Prasad, J.) Ravi/-