S. K. AGARWAL, J. ( 1 ) BY this petition under Section 439 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short cr. P. C), petitioner is seeking bail in case RC no. 3a/2003 ACU. X/ac. III dated 29. 4. 2003, under Sections 7, 8, 11, 12 and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (l) (d) of Prevention of corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120- bipc. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is an IAS Officer and was working as vice chairman, Delhi Development authority (hereinafter "dda" ). On 26. 3. 2003, a case RC AC-1/2003/a0001), under Sections 7, 8,11,13 (2) read with Section 13 (l) (d) of prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120-BIPC was registered. Petitioner s house and office were searched. Petitioner was arrested on 3. 4. 2003 and was released on bail vide order dated 27. 5. 2003 passed in crl. M. (M) No. 1857/2003 by this Court. ( 3 ) ON 29. 4. 2003, another case [rc No. 3 (A)/ 2003 ACU-X/ac III) was registered under the same set of sections, on the allegations that dda had undertaken the development of aruna Asaf Ali Road and the same entrusted the work to the PWD. A stretch of land passing through village Kishangarh, could not be handed over to the PWD as there were several encroachments. Several suits came to be filed by the affected persons. Two suits, bima Choudhury v. UOI and Ors. , S. No. 2362/ 2003) and Azad Singh v. Ram Singh, [s. No. 1493/2003) were filed by the close relations of accused Vinod Khatri. Copy of the order dated 1. 2. 2000 passed by Hon ble Mr. Justice j. D. Kapoor, in one of the cases was delivered at the DDA office by Mr. Vinod Khatri on 5. 2. 2002, and in the case filed by Azad Singh, justice S. Mukherjee passed an ad-interim order on 20. 2. 2003, whereby parties were directed to maintain status-quo with regard to the stretch of land in dispute and SDM of the area was directed to demarcate the land in respect of all such cases. It is alleged that this order was obtained by Vinod Khatri by unfair means and the file of this case was recovered by CBI from the office of Dharamvir khattar, during the investigations of the earlier case. Ms. Gita Mittal, vide her letter dated 8. 2. It is alleged that this order was obtained by Vinod Khatri by unfair means and the file of this case was recovered by CBI from the office of Dharamvir khattar, during the investigations of the earlier case. Ms. Gita Mittal, vide her letter dated 8. 2. 2003 to the Vice Chairman, DDA and the chief Legal Advisor recommended filing of two appeals against the order dated 20. 2. 2003. It is alleged that this did not suit vinod Khatri and he wanted the removal of ms. Gita Mittal as the advocate of the DDA in these cases. It is alleged that on the asking of vinod Khatri and Dharambir Khattar, petitioner agreed to change Ms. Gita Mittal, Advocate, who was contesting these cases on behalf of dda and in her place Mr. Rakesh Munjal, senior Advocate, along with Mr. Arjun Pant, advocate were appointed by Shri S. K. Tandon, chief Legal Advisor, DDA. They appeared in the said suit as well on 20. 3. 2003. After registration of the case on 29. 4. 2003, petitioner was arrested. The investigations are in progress. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner s house search was conducted on 26. 3. 2003. Neither any cash nor Jewellery was seized by the Investigating Officers, as they were fully satisfied that the same was not connected with any offence. After his arrest in the second case, petitioner s house and office were again search but nothing incriminating was found. Learned counsel argued that registration of the second case was mala fide and impermissible in law and the custody of the petitioner is illegal. Referring to the files produced by the CBI, it is argued that on the note put up by the department, the petitioner had specifically ordered that mr. Gita Mittal was to continue as the counsel in all the cases mentioned in the note. Mr. Rakesh Munjal, Senior Advocate was appointed by the Chief of Legal Advisor and not by the petitioner for contesting the appeals. Reliance is placed on the law laid down by the Supreme Court in T. T. Anthony v. State of Kerala, (201) 6 SCC 181; and c. B. I. v. Anupam J. Kulkarni, (1992) 3 scc 141 . Mr. Rakesh Munjal, Senior Advocate was appointed by the Chief of Legal Advisor and not by the petitioner for contesting the appeals. Reliance is placed on the law laid down by the Supreme Court in T. T. Anthony v. State of Kerala, (201) 6 SCC 181; and c. B. I. v. Anupam J. Kulkarni, (1992) 3 scc 141 . ( 5 ) SHRI A. K. Dutt, Learned Counsel for the cbi, on the other hand argued that the second case was registered when fresh facts came to light during investigation of the first case; and second case was registered as it revealed another conspiracy not covered by the earlier cases. In my view, at this stage it Is not necessary to decide the question whether cbi could register Another FIR, under the sections in the other unit of CBI. As per settled law, while considering application for grant of bail, the Court is not required to go into the detailed examination of evidence and is required to take consideration the matters like gravity of offence; circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; presence of the accused being secured during the trial and that the possibility of evidence being tampered with, and such other similar considerations. ( 6 ) MR. A. K. Dutt, learned counsel appearing for CBI sought to heavily rely upon the tape recorded telephone conversations between vinod Khatri, Dharambir Khattar, and the petitioner on different dates. Even if tape recorded telephone conversation is taken to be genuine, it would, at best, constitute a corroborative piece of evidence. Reference in this regard can be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Mahabir Prasad v. Surinder Kaur, AIR 1982 SC 1043 wherein it was held: "tape recorded conversation can only be relied upon as corroborative evidence of conversation deposed by any of the parties to the conversation and in the absence of evidence of any such conversation, the tape-recorded conversation is indeed no proper evidence and cannot be relied upon. " ( 7 ) ON being asked as to what is the substantive evidence so far collected by the cbi, learned counsel referred to a statement of the Patwari, of the DDA showing that vinod Khatri, Azad Singh and Bimla Choudhari are related. No other material was pointed out. It offers that statements of witnesses connected with the case have so far not been recorded. No other material was pointed out. It offers that statements of witnesses connected with the case have so far not been recorded. Learned counsel submitted that because of pressure of work, statements of witnesses could not be recorded. Even cfsl report with regard to tape recorded, conversation has not been received. Learned counsel, on instructions, fairly conceded that it is not possible for the investigating agency to complete the investigation and file the charges-sheet within 60 days. It is needless to point out that bail cannot be withheld as a measure of pre-trial punishment. The Court is required to take into consideration whether there is any likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and tampering with the evidence. There is hardly any substantive evidence, so far collected to support the charge. The approach adopted by the learned Trial Court while rejecting petitioner s bail is gravely erroneous and is not sustainable. ( 8 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1. 0 lac with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court/acmm/duty magistrate, subject to the conditions that: (i) he shall not influence or tamper with the evidence or contract the witnesses; (ii) he shall not leave the country without prior permission as the trial Court; (iii) he shall surrender his passport, if any; (iv) he shall participate in the investigation as and when required and (v) he shall not visit the office of dda, without information to the CBI. ( 9 ) PETITION stands disposed of. Dasti to both the parties.