JUDGMENT : Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J. 1. Shri Ravindra Shrivastava, Senior Advocate along with Shri Ashuthosh Pandey, counsel for the Applicant. 2. Shri Sunil Otwani, Additional Advocate General along with Shri Vimlesh Bajpai, G.A. for the State. I.A. No. 01/2022, an application for grant of ad-interim bail. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 3. The Applicant has preferred this application as he is arrested in connection with Crime No. 22/2021 registered in police station EOW, Raipur (CG) for the offence under Sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and 201, 467 and 471 IPC. 4. Case of the prosecution is that the Applicant is a member of the Indian Police Services and was allotted to the Madhya Pradesh Cadre. After bifurcation, the Applicant was allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh under the Chhattisgarh cadre. The Applicant is substantially holding the post of Additional Director General of Police and is presently placed under suspension. Upon receiving an information about the disproportionate assets accumulated by the Applicant, an enquiry was conducted whereafter an FIR was registered against the applicant under Section 13(1)(b) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. A search was conducted at the residence of the Applicant from 1.7.2021 to 3.7.2021 after obtaining necessary search warrant from the competent Court. An inventory of the seizure was made and the investigation is in progress. The search and seizure conducted by the Investigating agency i.e. Economic Offences Wing have been carried out on the basis of information received and after due satisfaction about the veracity of the information, the crime has been registered. During investigation, Sections 201, 467 and 471 IPC were added. 5. The Applicant had earlier preferred a Writ Petition bearing W.P.(Cr.) No. 435/2021 seeking transfer of the investigation from EOW/ACB to C.B.I. In the said Writ Petition, an interim application has been preferred for stay, which was dismissed vide order dated 23.07.2021 against which, the Applicant had preferred SLP (Criminal) No. 5477/2021, which was also rejected by Hon'ble the Supreme Court vide its order dated 01.10.2021. The Applicant withdrew the Writ Petition (Cri.) No. 435/2021 and filed a Petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, 1973 bearing number Cr. The Applicant withdrew the Writ Petition (Cri.) No. 435/2021 and filed a Petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, 1973 bearing number Cr. M.P. 1153/2021 challenging the FIR registered on 29.06.2021 under Crime No. 22/2021 for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the P.C. Act, 1988') as amended in 2018, registered at Police Station-EOW/ACB, Raipur and also sought direction against Non-Applicants not to take any further steps against the Applicant in pursuance of the said FIR. While dismissing the SLP (Criminal) No. 5477/2021, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view that the Applicant had not filed bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C and therefore, he is not entitled to get any interim relief as prayed for by him. 6. Learned Senior Advocate submits that before registering the FIR, no preliminary enquiry was conducted and the FIR is malicious. While referring to para-63 of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami vs. State of Maharashtra and Others (2021) 2 SCC 427 , it was submitted that the High Court should not foreclose itself from the exercise of the power when a citizen has been arbitrarily deprived of his/her personal liberty in exercise of State power. Again, while referring to para-70 of the said judgment, it was submitted that more than four decades ago, in a celebrated judgment in the matter of State of Rajasthan vs. Balchand (1977) 4 SCC 308 , Krishna Iyer, J. pithily reminded us that the basic rule of our criminal justice system is "bail, not jail". The High Courts and Courts in the District Judiciary of India must enforce this principle in practice, and not forgo that duty, leaving this Court to intervene at all times. 7. Lastly, learned Senior Advocate would submit that Applicant is arrested on 11.01.2022 and considering the background of the Applicant, who is Senior Police Officer and is presently under suspension not having any powers and is a heart patient taking medical treatment under expert supervision for which, supporting medical documents are also filed herewith, therefore, he may be granted ad-interim bail. 8. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would oppose the prayer for grant of ad-interim bail firstly on the basis of gravity of allegations and attending circumstances. 8. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would oppose the prayer for grant of ad-interim bail firstly on the basis of gravity of allegations and attending circumstances. Secondly, during investigation, it was found that the Applicant has amassed huge assets, which is beyond his legally admissible income and Sections 201, 467 and 471 IPC were added. He further submits that the Applicant is an influential person and his release would affect the ongoing investigation as certain complaints have been received against him for making attempts to ensure that the witnesses turn hostile, therefore, he is not entitled to be granted ad-interim bail. 9. Having considered the submissions of the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of accusation, without discussing the facts in detail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, merely on the ground that the Applicant is a heart patient and considering all the aspects of the matter, this Court is of the view that at least no ground is made out for grant of ad-interim bail, at this stage. 10. It is made clear that the observations made by this Court in the preceding paragraphs shall not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case and the same shall not affect the Applicant's case for grant of bail at the time of final hearing. Accordingly, IA No. 01/2022 is dismissed.