ORDER

D.N. Prasad, J.- Both the applications, namely, B.A. No. 10206 of 2001 and B.A. No.2 of 2002 have been heard together as they are arisen out of the RC 68(A) of 1996 registered under Sections 409,420,467,468,471,472, 474 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 13(2) and Section 13(a)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The short facts- of the case as alleged is that the Patna High Court while disposing off the writ petitions being C.W.J.C. Nos. 1617 of 1996. 1642 of 1996, 1644 of 1996, 1656 of 1996, 456 of 1996 (R), 602 of 1996 (R), 675 of 1996 (R) and 687 of 1996 (R) directed the Central Bureau of Investigations vide order dated 11-3-1996................

"To enquire and scrutinise all cases of excess withdrawal and expenditure into the Animal Husbandry Department in the State of Bihar during the periods 1977-78 to 1995-96," On the basis of the said order, the Central Bureau of Investigation took up the scrutiny of documents received from the District Treasury office, Chaibasa and the Regional Director, South Chotanagpur Range, A.H.D., Ranchi, for the financial year 1992-93. It was found that during the period under scrutiny and investigation the accused persons including the petitioners entered into a criminal conspiracy and, in pursuance of which, an amount of Rs. 37,62,79,883/- was fraudulently withdrawn from the District Treasury, Chaibasa by presenting false bills causing wrongful loss of the aforesaid amount and have been misappropriated the said amount, as a result of which, a huge Government exchequer defaulcated. It is also alleged that one Dr. Pandey, C.P. Sharma the then Drawing and Disbursing Officer during the financial year 1992-93 had passed the bills on the basis of false receipts provided by subordinate officials in favour of the Suppliers-Firms and misappropriated the said huge amount to the Government exchequer. After completing investigation and finding a prima facie case, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons including the petitioners.

3. Two counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of the CBI claiming therein that the petitioners conspired with co-accused persons and in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy scuttled the enquiry/investigation on the false pretext of the PAC enquiry. It is also alleged that the case are different from each other with respect to the amount, place and the period of occurrence and after the prima facie case, charge-sheet was also submitted in this case. It is further alleged that the petitioner though got registered several cases but did not register the subject case with the role intention to save the skin as fraudulent withdrawal of the subject case was deliberated upon a meeting chaired by him and attended by the other co-accused persons of Patna on 7-6-1993. Investigation also revealed that the PAC purportedly seized all relevant records for inquiry to pre-empt any enquiry/investigation into the allegation and the petitioner (Laloo Prasad Yadav) is in judicial custody in this case from 20-12-2001.

Rejoinder to the counter-affidavits has been field on behalf of the petitioner stating therein that the petitioner was granted interim bail in RC No. 63(A)/96 by the Patna High Court in Cr. Misc. No. 100 of 2001.

4. Mr. P.N. Pandey, Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner (Laloo Prasad Yadav) submitted at the very outset that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and there is nothing specific against him for the charge of conspiracy. It is further arguid that the petitioner has been made an accused in so many cases of the Fodder Scam but the allegation of conspiracy in all the cases are same and similar in nature. It was further argued that the petitioner has been granted bail in RC Nos. 447(A) of 1996, 20(A) of 1996, 64(A) of 1996, 38(A) of 1996 and 63(A) of 1996 as well as RC No. 68(A) of 1996 and RC No. 20(A) of 1996 are the cases of Chaibasa T