Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. This is an application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested on 5-4-2015 in connection with crime No. 50 of 2014 registered at Police Station A.C.B., Raipur, District Raipur (CG), for the offence punishable under Sections 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant amassed wealth of Rs. 4,99,74.582/- disproportionate to his known source of income while working as Deputy Commissioner in the Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Raipur and thereby he committed the aforesaid offence.

3. Mr. B.P. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that present applicants has not amassed wealth disproportionate to his known source of income as he has already supplied the information in shape of Form A-1, A-2 and A-3 with regard to check period. He would further submit that the alleged disproportionate property has already been identified by the team of Anti Corruption Bureau and he is ready and willing to furnish bail bond and he will abide by the conditions imposed upon him and no further custodial interrogation of the applicant is required as the property said to be disproportionate has been seized. He would further submit that filing of challan and granting sanction is likely to take time and the applicant is cooperating with the investigation and he is in jail since 5-4-2015 and no useful purpose would be served keeping him in jail, therefore, they may be released on bail.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposing the bail application would submit that the applicant herein is rank defaulter and is not cooperating with the investigation as he sought time on 5-4-2015 as he was to submit necessary information in shape of Form A-1, A-2 and A-3 and the matter is still under investigation and as such, present applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary.

6. A close and careful perusal of the material available in the case diary of the Crime No. 50 of 2014 would show that offences under Sections 13(1)(e) & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act has been registered against the applicant finding that he has amassed wealth of Rs. 4,99,74,582/- disproportionate property to his known source of income and the matter is still under investigation and charge-sheet has not been filed yet & it is the case of the prosecution that the applicant is not cooperating with investigation.

7. In the matter of State of Gujarat vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal, (1987) 2 SCC 364, their Lordships of the Supreme Court, while considering a request of the prosecution for adducing evidence inter alia, observed as under:

"5. The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even-handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white-collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and national interest".

8. In State of Maharashtra through CBI, Anti Corruption Branch, Mumbai vs. Balakrishna Dattatrya Kumbhar, (2012) 12 SCC 384 their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that corruption is violation of human right and observed as under:

"Corruption is not only a punishable offence but also undermines human rights, indirectly violating them, and systematic corruption, is a human rights' violation in itself, as it leads to systematic economic crimes".

9.