AMARESHWAR SAHAY, J. - (1.) HEARD the parties.
(2.) THIS anticipatory bail application has been placed before this Division Bench on being referred by the learned single Judge, by his order dated 6.5.2009, whereby differing with the views expressed by an order passed by a single Bench of this Court in the case of "Dr. Fakir Chand Hembram V/s. State of Jharkhand, reported in 2008 (4) JCR 245", he opined that : '' (i) Successive anticipatory bail applications should not be entertained on the ground that one or other ground was not raised earlier, otherwise the stories may become endless and the investigation/trial will be delayed. (ii) Grant of anticipatory bail to similarly situated co -accused may be a ground for regular bail,, but it should not be a ground for renewing prayer for anticipatory bail. The Court granting anticipatory bail may not be knowing about other orders granting or refusing anticipatory bail by other Judges. (iii) An event taking place after rejection of anticipatory bail, and by which the prosecution case against the petitioner is seriously shaken, may also be a ground for regular bail, but should not be a ground for renewing prayer for anticipatory bail. In order to answer the reference, firstly, it is necessary to notice the relevant facts of the case, which are briefly stated herein below.
(3.) THE CBI registered a case being R.C. Case No. 4 -A/07 -D under Sections 120 -B, 420, 467, 468 and 471, IPC and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against three named accused namely, Rajendra Prasad, Bhimal Ram and Ram Naresh Singh, the officials of Bharat Coking Coal Limited. On completion of investigation, CBI submitted charge -sheet on 30.6.2008 in the case under the aforesaid sections, on the basis of which, cognizance of the offence alleged was taken by the Special Judge, CBI on 11.8.2008.;