ORDER : 1. This bail application has been filed under section 439 of the Cr. P.C. by the applicant, namely, Shri Ranjit Kumar Borah praying for bail in connection with RC AC-T 2021 A001I registered under section 120B of the IPC read with sections 7/8/11 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘the PC Act’). 2. The applicant was arrested on 14.12.2021. 3. I have heard Shri A. Tewari, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri M. Haloi, learned Special PP, CBI. 4. At the outset this court has been informed that on earlier two occasions, the prayer for bail of the applicant has been rejected by this court. In the first case, which was registered, as BA No. 229/2022, the emphasis was more on default bail which was, however, negated by this court. The second, bail application was registered as BA No. 1410/2022 which was also rejected vide order dated 26.7.2022. This court had rejected the aforesaid two bail applications after detailed discussions of ail the attending circumstances. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Tewari had. drawn the attention of this court to the statements of Shri Pradyut Dey-PW5, Ms. Deepti Upadhyay-PW7 and Shri Deba Kanta Boro-PW8. By referring to the aforesaid statements, the learned counsel has tried to make out a case that the applicant was not even aware that the polythene packet which was placed on the table in his drawing room contained cash. The statement of Ms. Deepti Upadhyay, wife of Shri Vijay Kumar Upadhyay has been relied upon to show that there was no demand of any amount by the applicant as illegal gratification. The statement of Deba Kanta Boro (Assistant Electrical Engineer-PW8) has been relied upon to contend that all works of the firm/company in question, were over and there was no existing contract for which there would be necessity to pay any illegal gratification. 6. At this stage, this court had expressed its views that consideration of a prayer for bail has to be only on the basis of a prima facie finding regarding the involvement of the applicant in the offence. 6. At this stage, this court had expressed its views that consideration of a prayer for bail has to be only on the basis of a prima facie finding regarding the involvement of the applicant in the offence. This court had further put a caveat that submissions touching the merits of the case are required to be consciously avoided, as any observation made by this court while passing final orders in the application for bail would cause prejudice to either of the parties, as a decision on merits is a decision to be taken by the trial court, as all those matters are strictly within the domain of the learned trial court. As indicated above, any observation made by a Superior Court touching the merits while granting or refusing the prayer for bail would have the propensity to influence the trial. 7. “Under those circumstances, Shri Tewari, learned counsel alternatively harped on the following three points: (i) The applicant is in custody for about 11 months in “which period, there has been no interrogation and the charge sheet has also been filed. The issue of parity has also been raised by the learned counsel by contending that two similarly placed accused, namely, Shri Vijay Kumar Upadhyay and Shri Chintan Jain have been granted bail. (ii) Secondly, there is no instance of non-cooperation from the applicant, cither in the investigation or in the trial. No application has been filed by the prosecution for cancellation of the bail granted to other co-accused. (iii) Thirdly, it is stated that the mother of the applicant is 85 years old and he is required to be released on bail to look after her. 8. In support of his submissions, Shri Tewari, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the two case laws: (i) P. Chidambaram v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2020) 13 SCC 337 and (ii) N. Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 3 SCC 687 . 9. Per contra, Shri Haloi, learned Special PP, CBI submits that in the earlier orders passed by this court, especially, the second order i.e., 26.7.2022, this court has taken into consideration all aspects of the matter in great details before rejecting the bail and, therefore, there is hardly any scope for making the present prayer. 9. Per contra, Shri Haloi, learned Special PP, CBI submits that in the earlier orders passed by this court, especially, the second order i.e., 26.7.2022, this court has taken into consideration all aspects of the matter in great details before rejecting the bail and, therefore, there is hardly any scope for making the present prayer. He submits that the question of parity will not arise in consideration of a bail inasmuch, as the roles of different accused, are different and in this case, it is the applicant who is the principal accused and had demanded the illegal gratification. As regards the length of detention, the learned Special PP submits that the same cannot be the sole factor and it depends on the magnitude of the offence. As regards illness of the applicant's mother, it is not even the pleaded case and is, therefore, an afterthought. 10. The learned Special PP, Shri Haloi further submits that there are substantial materials, including Call Detail Record (CDR) and WhatsApp messages linking the applicant to the commission of offence. It is also submitted on behalf of the CBI that serious Hawala transactions are also involved in this case which are under further investigation. 11. As indicated above, this court had laid down the caveat not to address the issue touching the merits of the case in an application for bail, except for coming to a prima facie view. So far as the permissible ground., the ground of parity would not be a substantial ground as the role of each accused is different and in this case, as has been pointed out by the learned Special PP, the present applicant is the prime accused who had made the demand for illegal gratification. The point regarding long period in custody has to be examined from the point of view of the magnitude of the offence. In the instant case, the allegation is of illegal gratification of Rs. 2 crores (approx) wherein, the applicant was caught red handed. As regards the plea of there being an ailing mother, apart from the fact that there are no such pleadings in the bail application, even assuming that there is such a statement, the same would not be sufficient, as an incumbent is required to state in details regarding the other siblings, if any and as to whether the mother was living all along with the applicant or elsewhere. 12. 12. This court on the earlier occasion while rejecting the bail of the applicant vide order dated 26.7.2022 had taken note of the relevant case laws. 13. In the case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CB1, (2013) 7 SCC 439 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with economic offences has laid down the following: “34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. 35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered “with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations.” 14. In the case of State of Bihar v. Amit Kumar, (2017) 13 SCC 751 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court once again has reiterated the position regarding the ill effects of Socio Economic Offences and has also laid down that length of tenure in custody may not be the only factor of consideration for grant of bail. For ready reference, the relevant extract is quoted herein below: “8. A bare reading of the order impugned discloses that the High Court has not given any reasoning while granting bail. In a mechanical way, the High Court granted bail more on the fact that the accused is already in custody for a long time. When the seriousness of the offence is such the mere fact that he was in jail for however long time should not be the concern of the courts. We are not able to appreciate such a casual approach while granting bail in a case which has the effect of undermining the trust of people in the integrity of the education system in the State of Bihar.” 15. We are not able to appreciate such a casual approach while granting bail in a case which has the effect of undermining the trust of people in the integrity of the education system in the State of Bihar.” 15. This court had also examined the pros and cons in the form of a chart, which is reproduced below : IN FAVOUR AGAINST Length of detention from 14.12.2021 Magnitude of the offence Completion of investigation by filing of Charge Sheet. Nature of the allegations wherein the applicant was caught red handed accepting bribe. Applicant already dismissed from service. Applicant is not cooperating with the investigation/prosecution. Applicant is a Government Servant. The offence involved is a socio economic offence which has the propensity to destroy the society. One co-accused has been released on bail. Case of each accused has to be examined on the facts & circumstances pertaining to him. 16. This court has also taken aid of the guidelines laid down by the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 4 SCC 642 , wherein the following observations have been made: “26. It can be stated without any fear of contradiction that corruption is not to be judged by degree, for corruption mothers disorder, destroys societal will to progress, accelerates undeserved ambitions, kills the conscience, jettisons the glory of the institutions, paralyses the economic health of a country, corrodes the sense of civility and mars the marrows of governance. It is worth noting that immoral acquisition of wealth destroys the energy of the people believing in honesty, and history records with agony how they have suffered. The only redeeming fact is that collective sensibility respects such suffering as it is in consonance with the constitutional morality.” 17. Further, in the case of Subramaniam Swamy v. Director CBI, (2014) 8 SCC 682 , a similar observation has been made which is extracted herein below: “75. Corruption corrodes the moral fabric of the society and corruption by public servants not only leads to corrosion of the moral fabric of the society but is also harmful to the national economy and national interest, as the persons occupying high posts in the Government by misusing their power due to corruption can cause considerable damage to the national economy, national interest and image of the country.” 18. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court is of the considered opinion that the applicant has not been able to make out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 19. Records produced by Shri Haloi, learned Special PP, CBI are returned back.