Section 88 of the Code is an enabling provision applicable only in bailable or trivial cases and cannot be used in serious offences.

Nagendra Rai, J.

1. The petitioner is the same in both the cases and the questions of law involved therein are also the same and as such both have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. in both the cases, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 18.1.2000 passed by the Special Judge, Central Bureau of Investigation, Patna, in Special Case No. 61 of 1996 arising out of R.C. Case No. 58-A of 1996 and Special Case No. 59 of 1996 arising out of R.C. Case No. 57-A of 1996, both registered under sections 409, 419, 420, 167, 467, 471, 472, 424, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and sections 13(2), read with 13 (1) (c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, by which the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner to release him on bond as provided under section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) has been rejected.

3. Cr. W.J.C. No. 76 of 2000 arises out of Special Case No. 61 of 1996 and Cr. W.J.C. No. 77 of 2000 arises out of Special Case No. 59 of 1996.

4. A public cry was raised with regard to misappropriation of huge sum of public money in the Animal Husbandry Department, Government of Bihar. Some cases were instituted before the Bihar Police. The matter was brought before this court in C.W.J.C. Nos. 1675/96, 1642/96, 1644/96, 1656/96, 471/96(R), 459/96 (R), 602/96 (R), 675/96 (R) and 687/96 (R) and a Division Bench of this court, by order dated 19.3.1996 [1996(1) PLJR 561], directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as the C.B.I.) to investigate the cases with regard to misappropriation of Government funds by the officials and suppliers of the Animal Husbandry Department, Government of Bihar. The said order was challenged before the Supreme Court [1996(1) PLJR (SC)97] in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 5811 of 1996 and the same was affirmed with modification that the investigations of the cases already registered are to be taken by the C.B.I. In pursuance of the said direction, investigations of a large number of cases pending with regard to misappropriation of public fund in the Animal Husbandry Department were taken by the C.B.I.

5. F.I.R. No. 25/96 dated 16.3.96 was registered on the basis of information given by one Sachidanand Sinha, SubDivisional Officer, Simdega, Distt. Gumla with regard to misappropriation of Govt. fund in the Animal Husbandry Department within Simdega Sub- Division, which was taken over by the C.B.I. and was numbered as R.C. Case No. 58A/96, which gave rise to Spl. Case No. 61/96.

6. Gumla P.S. Case No. 53 dated 11.3.1996 was lodged on the basis of an information given by Janakji Kant Sharan, Executive Magistrate, Gumla and the same was taken over by the C.B.I. and was numbered as R.C. Case No. 57A of 1996, which gave rise to Special Case No. 59 of 1996.

7. In both the cases, the allegations are that the public servants in connivance with the suppliers and others misappropriated the public money by creating forged and fabricated documents.

8. The petitioner is a Veterinary Doctor and at the relevant time he was posted as T.V.O. Mobile and had also worked for some time as Assistant Piggery Development Officer, Simdega. He was not named as an accused in the F.I.Rs. of the aforesaid two cases. However, during investigation, the Police found hand of the petitioner also in the alleged offences and, thereafter, submitted charge-sheets in both the cases. In Special Case No. 61 of 1996, charge-sheet was submitted on 7.9.1996 and the Special Judge on the same day took cognizance and issued summons against the accused, who were on bail and non-bailable warrant of arrest against other accused persons including the petitioner, who had not appeared during investigation. In Special Case No. 59 of 1996, the charge-sheet was submitted on 12.10.1999 against the petitioner and others and the Special Judge, C.B.I., took cognizance on the same day and issued non-bailabte warrant against the petitioner and others, who had no