JUDGMENT :

1. Vakalatnama filed today by Shri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, Advocate on behalf of applicant is taken on record.

2. Present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant 2nd anticipatory bail to the applicant - Om Narayan Tiwari in Case Crime No.867 of 2012, under Sections 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station - Kotwali, District - Ballia.

3. Heard Shri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by S/Shri Rajiv Lochan Shukla and S.K. Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned AGA and perused the material available on record.

4. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has no concern with the present matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. It is further submitted that the applicant was on anticipatory bail during investigation and charge sheet has been filed and cognizance has also been taken thereon. An application was moved before the Court concerned to extend the period of anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial but the same was rejected. It is next contended that allegations levelled against the applicant can best be decided during trial. Since applicant has not misused the liberty of anticipatory bail earlier, he should be granted on anticipatory bail. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest by the police any time. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Counsel has referred to the documents annexed with the application and also the order passed by this Court on the anticipatory bail application as well as the order passed in the application u/s 482 CrPC moved by the applicant.

5. Learned A.G.A. opposing the prayer submitted that charge sheet has been submitted in the matter and first anticipatory bail application moved by the applicant was allowed extending liberty to the applicant till submission of charge sheet. Application u/s 482 CrPC moved by the applicant has been rejected on merits finding a prima facie case against him. Hence, second anticipatory bail application of the applicant cannot be allowed.

6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the entire record carefully.

7. A perusal of the record shows that applicant has earlier approached this Court through Anticipatory Bail Application on registration of F.I.R. and this Court passed the following order in the said application:

"Heard Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri G. P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

This Anticipatory Bail Application (under Section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved for seeking bail in Case Crime No. 867 of 2012, under Section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station-Kotwali, District Ballia.

It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that earlier recommendation was made on 28.08.2010 by the Lokayukt directing for lodging F.I.R. against the accused applicant, under Section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, pursuant to which F.I.R. dated 30.11.2012 was lodged against the accused applicant but no investigation was conducted. Further it is argued that the allegation in the present

F.I.R. is that the applicant had total income of Rs. 16,38,727/-from all of his known sources of income and his expenditure is shown to be Rs. 32,91,469/-, therefore, it was found that he had spent Rs. 16,52,742/-in excess of his income which was found to be disproportionate to his known sources of income. It is argued that no check period has been mentioned in the F.I.R. as to during which period the amount was found to be disproportionate to his known sources of income. An investigation was conducted by the office of Lokayukt in this matter in which it was found that the applicant had not taken permission while purchasing property, hence, recommendation was made for initiating departmental proceedings aga