1. - Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant, Government Advocate-cum Additional Advocate General for the State, and Mr. Mahendra Gaur, for the complainant.

2. The applicant was arrested and is in jail for being an accused in an offence disclosed in FIR No.442/2013 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 384 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC'), on the allegations that despite being Meena by caste, and suffering the disability of selling the land to any person, except a person who is by caste Meena, he entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for sale of 60 to 70 bighas of land gradually, for which he executed sale deeds and accepted a huge amount in advance. He had full knowledge that he could not have sold the lands to the complainants, who do not belong to Scheduled Tribe. An attempt was alleged to have been made by the accused alongwith Counsel engaged by the complainant, who was also an accused in an offence for receiving money in advance, for which he had no right to sale, in view of the restriction under Section 42(b) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act.

3. An FIR was registered by the Anti Corruption Bureau(ACB) for making an attempt to bribe the Patwari, to carry out mutations, of the land, which was illegally sold by the accused and other accomplices to the complainant, and for which, the accused was arrested and sent to jail on 25.07.2013. He is in jail since thereafter. The High Court rejected the bail application, on which the Supreme Court and the ACB granted bail to Babu Lal Meena and Shankar Lal Meena, with certain conditions.

4. The first bail application was rejected, with directions, on the request of learned counsel appearing for the applicant, that the trial Court will conclude the arguments on the charges on 15.10.2014, and in any case, within next 15 days, and if the charges are framed against the applicant, the witnesses will be examined within two months, with liberty to file fresh bail application.

5. The charges have been framed, but the witnesses have not been examined so far. It is submitted that trial will take a long time, to conclude. It is contended that the complainant had entered into a MOU with full knowledge that the applicant is Meena by caste, and that the sale was not permissible to him, except in certain conditions. Later on, the sale deed of 50 bighas of land was executed in favour of the nominees of the complainant, who are Meena by caste, ostensibly for the benefit of the complainant.

6. Learned Government Advocate submits that the arrest was made by the Anti Corruption Bureau, in a case of abetting in giving bribe to Patwari, in which the applicant was arrested and is in jail since 25.7.2013. The bail application was rejected by the trial Court and the High Court. The Supreme, however, by an order dated 12.09.2014 in Criminal Appeal No.1995/2014, had granted bail to the applicant in FIR No.340 of 2013, P.S. Pradhan Aarakshi Kendra, Anti Corruption Bureau, District Jaipur under Sections 7, 8, 10, 13(1)(D) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. In the present case, the accused is facing trial for playing fraud, cheating, and forgery in entering into an agreement of sale of the lands to the complainant, in violation of law. It is submitted that there are four more cases registered against the applicant. The first case is relating to an incident dated 18.11.2001 under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 325 IPC in Police Station Amer, in which the applicant was acquitted for want of evidence on 17.04.2003. The other case is relating to an incident dated 11.02.2007 under Sections 323, 341 and 447 IPC. The third case related to an incident dated 01.01.2009 under Section 447 IPC, and the fourth related to an incident dated 08.04.2011 under Section 283 IPC, all in Police Station Amer. In one of the cases under Sections 147, 323 and 341 IPC dated 04.05.2007, the applicant was convicted