1. By these petitions the Petitioners seek bail in case FIR bearing RC-DAI-2010-A-0044 for offence under Section 120B read with Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short “PC Act”).

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner Suresh Kalmadi contends that the Petitioner was arrested on 24th April, 2011 and the charge sheet was filed on 20th May, 2011. All the offences alleged against the Petitioner are at the most punishable upto seven years except for offence under Section 467 IPC. As per the allegations set out in the charge sheet no offence under Section 467 IPC is made out against the Petitioner. Further the allegation qua forgery relates to insertion of an advertisement wherein instead of the words “Timing, Scoring or/and Result”, the words “Timing, Scoring and Result” were used, the cost of which advertisement was only Rs.69,603/-which was not cleared by the Petitioner. There is no delay in the trial on account of the Petitioner. In fact after filing the charge sheet the CBI has twice filed applications as late as on 24th September, 2011 and 3rd November, 2011 for placing additional documents and further list of witnesses on record. The application dated 3rd November, 2011 has been allowed on the 4th January, 2012, and the matter is now listed for scrutiny. The allegations against the Petitioner are regarding procurement of the Time Scoring Results (TSR) and it is alleged that conditions were created so that the tender could be awarded only to the Swiss Timing Omega. According to learned counsel in fact the tender was not finalized by the organizing committee. In view of the complaints received, the matter was referred to the Central Government and the sub-committee of the Central Government consisting of senior Secretary level officers held that there was no illegality or irregularity in the procurement process and it would be appropriate to award the tender to Swiss Timing Omega. Relying on Gurcharan Singh and others vs. State (Delhi Administration, 1978 (1) SCC 118 and Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI, 2011(13) SCALE 107 it is contended that the gravity of the allegations have to be seen on the basis of the punishment prescribed by the Code and not by what the media reports. In Sanjay Chandra (supra) their Lordship’s granted bail even though the allegation was for offences under Section 409 read with 120B IPC, which is punishable upto life. Learned counsel further contends that a number of board meetings were held and as is evident from the board meeting dated 5th July, 2008 insistence was to procure from companies that had well established record. There is no denial that Swiss Timing Omega performed in the Olympics, Asian Games and Common Wealth Games. Further even in the Common Wealth Games 2010 there is no allegation that the timings, scoring or results were not excellent. The performance was of the best quality, which was appreciated by one and all. Referring to the notes of Mr. Jarnail Singh, Chief Executive Officer of the Common Wealth Games and Mr. V.K. Gautam, Chief Operating Officer it is contended that the notes prepared by these two officers also state that the selection of M/s Swiss Timing Omega was the correct decision in the situation. It is further contended that the medical condition of the Petitioner is that he has undergone aortic wall replacement in the year 2005 and thereafter he has been suffering from Cerebral Atrophy. He had strokes even while in the custody and once in such a situation he even received injuries. Thus the Petitioner be granted bail.

3. Learned counsel for Petitioner V.K. Verma contends that the order rejecting bail does not meet the standard of test laid down by the Hon”ble Supreme Court. The discretion has been exercised by the learned Trial Court in a casual manner. The Hon”ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra (Supra) clearly held that merely stating that there is an apprehension of witnesses being i