The seriousness of the offenses, the potential influence on witnesses, and the need to prevent interference with the trial process were central to the court's decision.

S.S.Nijjar, J.

1. This order will dispose of four petitions i.e. Crl. Misc. Nos. 215999-M, 21601-M, 21603-M and 21605-M of 2000.

2. Four FIRs have been registered against the petitioner, being FIR No. 1 of 1998 dated 3.2.1998, FIR No. 2 of 1998 dated 23.9.1998, FIR No. 3 of 1998 dated 26.10.1998 and FIR No. 1 of 1999 dated 16.3.1999. FIR No. 1 of 1998 has been registered under Sections 13(1)(b)(c)(d) and 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Sections 406/409/420/120-B of the Indian Penal Code. FIR No. 2 of 1998 has been registered under Sections 13(1)(b)(c)(d) and 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Sections 406/409/420/467/471/120-B IPC. FIR No. 3 of 1998 has been registered under Section 13(1)(b)(c)(d) and 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Sections 420 and 120-B of the IPC. FIR No. 1 of 1999 has been registered under Sections 13(1)(c), and 2 and 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Sections 409, 120-B and 511 of the Indian Penal Code. In all these proceedings, challans have been presented in the trial Court. In FIR No. 1 of 1998, challan has been presented on 4.2.1999. In FIR No. 2 of 1998, challan has been presented on 24.2.1999. In FIR No. 3 of 1998, challan has been presented on 27.12.1998 and in FIR No. 1 of 1999, challan has been presented on 6.9.1999. In all there are 59 persons who are to face the trial.

3. The house of the petitioner was raided by the Income Tax Department on 20.11.1997. According to the petitioner, the prosecutions have been launched against him at the instance of Smt. Anuradha Gupta who was at the relevant time, working as the Home Secretary, U.T., Chandigarh. The petitioner was made Secretary Engineering one day prior to Mrs. Anuradha Gupta took over as Home Secretary. Earlier the Home Secretary, exercised the powers of Secretary, Engineering. Smt. Anuradha Gupta is stated to have resented this loss of power as the Engineering Department is stated to have enjoyed the largest chunk of the budget of the Chandigarh Administration. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, nothing incriminating was recovered either from the residence of the petitioner or from the places of his relatives which were also raided and searched. However, FIR No. 1 of 1998 was registered against the petitioner and 38 other accused on 3.2.1998.

4. The petitioner applied for anticipatory bail on 9.2.1998 which was rejected by this Court on 23.2.1998. The petitioner moved the Supreme Court by way of SLP (Criminal) No. 876 of 1998. Interim anticipatory bail was granted. The Special Leave Petition was also dismissed on 27.3.1998. Thereafter, the petitioner made applications for bail in FIR Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of 1998. These were rejected by this Court by order dated 22.3.1999. On March 16, 1999, FIR No. 1 of 1999 was registered against the petitioner alongwith six other persons. This, according to the petitioner, was a mere repetition of the case which was covered by FIR No. 3 of 1998. The petitioner applied for quashing of FIR No. 1 of 1999 by way of petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This petition was disposed of on May 21, 1999 with a direction to the prosecution to amalgamate the challan of FIR No. 1 of 1999 to that of the others FIRs. Although the petitioner has been in custody, he was again arrested on 15.6.1999 in FIR No. 1 of 1999. The earlier applications for bail of the petitioner were dismissed with the observations that the same are dismissed at this stage. Therefore, the petitioner had again moved the applications for bail. In these applications, notices were issued to the Union Territory, Chandigarh. These applications for bail were dismissed order dated 26.10.1999. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid judgment by means of Special Leave Petition Nos. 3960-3963/1999. The Supreme Court passed the following order :-

"We are not inclined to entertain these petitions taking into account the gravity of offence. The SLPs are dismissed