ORDER : 1. By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant - original accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in case of his arrest in connection with the FIR registered as C.R No. RC0292022A0011 of 2022 before CBI/ACB/Gandhinagar Police Station, District: Gandhinagar for the offences under Section 7 etc of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. An affidavit-in-reply is filed on behalf of the respondent – CBI and also filed additional affidavit-in-reply. 3. Heard Mr.J. M. Panchal, learned senior advocate for Mr.Shahil Sarwani, learned advocate for the applicant, Mr.Chintan Dave, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 – State, Mr.R. C. Kodekar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondent No.2 – CBI, Mr.N. D. Nanavati, learned senior advocate with Mr.Mrugen Purohit, learned advocate for the original complainant and Mr.Devang Vyas, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the Income Tax Department. 4. Mr.Panchal, learned senior advocate for Mr.Sarwani, learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and is not connected with any incident or event constituting the offence as alleged in the FIR. He submits that the applicant has not played any role in the alleged offence. He submits that there is no prima facie case made out against the applicant and even none of the ingredients is satisfied so as to connect the applicant with the offence as alleged in the FIR. He also submits that two main ingredients of the Prevention of Corruption Act being demand and acceptance are not fulfilled in the present case and there is no acceptance or demand made by the applicant and the alleged amount was recovered by the Investigating Agency from the Angadia firm which is not even remotely connected to the applicant. He submits that though the evidence as to the alleged demand and acceptance of the undue advantage are in possession of the Investigating Agency, there is no scope for the applicant to tamper with any evidence. He submits that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary and besides the applicant will be available during the course of investigation and will not flee away from the justice. He submits that in view of the above, the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail by imposing suitable conditions. He submits that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary and besides the applicant will be available during the course of investigation and will not flee away from the justice. He submits that in view of the above, the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail by imposing suitable conditions. Learned senior advocate for the applicant on instructions states that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions including imposition of conditions with regard to powers of Investigating Agency to file an application before the competent Court for his remand. He further submits that upon filing of such application by the Investigating Agency, the right of applicant to oppose such application on merits may be kept open. He has submitted that the applicant neither demanded any amount nor accepted and no such recorded conversation is admissible in evidence as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and hence, there is no proof of demand of any undue advantage and such demand is sine qua non for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He submits that the Investigating Authority had published advertisement and/or notice in the media, social media and pasted “wanted” poster with the applicant’s name, photo and designation at various public places and near the houses of the applicant’s relatives. He submits that the applicant neither have any antecedents nor habitual offender nor declared as proclaimed offender nor committed any crime. He submits that the application may be allowed and the applicant may be released on bail. 5. Mr.Kodekar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondent – CBI has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail. He submits that the accused demanded an undue advantage of Rs.30,00,000/- from the complainant and some conversation to that effect was recorded on 03.10.2022. He submits that the applicant directed the complainant to deposit an the amount in the name of Vardhman with Dhara Angadia Firm and the same is incorporated in the panchnama in the presence of independent witnesses. He also submits that the accused himself admitted that he interacted with the complainant over phone on 04.10.2022 and this fact itself corroborates that the accused had conversation with the complainant over phone after delivery of undue advantage in the name of Vardhman with Dhara Angadia Firm. He also submits that the accused himself admitted that he interacted with the complainant over phone on 04.10.2022 and this fact itself corroborates that the accused had conversation with the complainant over phone after delivery of undue advantage in the name of Vardhman with Dhara Angadia Firm. He also submits that the accused had filed anticipatory bail application before the Special CBI Court wherein it is stated that he stayed at Blue Heaven Hotel at Jaipur, Rajasthan from 17.10.2022 to 26.10.2022, however, he booked the room in his name, but he had not stayed in the hotel and the statements of witnesses were recorded and evidences were collected in this regard. He further submits that while absconding from the chamber, the accused handed over mobile phone to his colleague to ensure that the same is not seized by the investigating team. He submits that the applicant is absconding since registration of the complaint and without sanction of leave or permission from the competent authority, unauthorized stay from duty is also a violation of conduct rules applicable for the public servant. He submits that the accused is the main conspirator and sole beneficiary of the proceeds of crime and to recover the mobile phones, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. He submits that the applicant is absconding from 04.10.2022 and is not cooperating the investigation despite the service of notices under Section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code dated 15.10.2022, 21.10.2022, 27.10.2022, 03.11.2022 and 10.11.2022 to appear before the Investigating Agency. He also submits that the accused fixed the meeting with the complainant through whatsapp and acknowledged the acceptance of undue advantage over the whatsapp call from the complainant to prove the facts. He further submits that the arrest warrant against the accused has been issued by the competent court on 22.11.2022 and efforts are being made to execute the same by the CBI but it is in vain as the accused absconded. He submits that the investigation is in crucial stage and the applicant is involved in the alleged crime and considering the nature and gravity of the crime, he may not be released on bail and the present application may be rejected. 6. Mr.Vyas, learned ASG appearing for the Income Tax Department submits that the investigation is in crucial stage and the applicant is absconding. 6. Mr.Vyas, learned ASG appearing for the Income Tax Department submits that the investigation is in crucial stage and the applicant is absconding. He also submits that the applicant has demanded the illegal gratification and the same is accepted by him. He submits that the custodial interrogation of the applicant at this stage is required and he may not be released on bail. In support of his arguments, Mr.Vyas, learned ASG has referred to and relied upon the decisions of this Court in the case of Rajesh Chandulal Shah Versus State of Gujarat reported in 2019 (3) GLR 1898 , Francis Daniel Lee Vs. State reported in 2022 Online Del 528, Prem Shankar Prasad Vs. State of Bhihar and another reported in 2021 SCC Online 955 and Bharatbhai Somabhai Patni Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2018 (0) AIJEL-HC 242563. 7. Mr. Dave, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State and Mr.N. D. Nanavati, learned senior advocate with Mr.Mrugen Purohit, learned advocate for the original complainant have supported the arguments of Mr.Kodekar, learned SPP and Mr.Vyas, learned ASG and opposed the grant of anticipatory bail. They have submitted that the applicant has committed an offence and considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the applicant may not be released on bail and the present application may be rejected. 8. In the case of Francis Daniel Lee (supra), relied upon by learned senior counsel for the applicant, the Delhi High Court has held and observed in paragraphs no.23, 24, 26 as under:- “23. The provision of anticipatory bail, while taking into consideration that social ignominy is not caused to the accused by way of being arrested, must also not allow the accused to take advantage of the same in order to flee from justice. It is well settled that ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of investigation intended to secure several purposes. The accused may have to be questioned in detail regarding various facets of motive, preparation, commission and aftermath of the crime and the connection of other persons, if any, in the crime. There may be circumstances in which the accused may provide information leading to discovery of material facts. The accused may have to be questioned in detail regarding various facets of motive, preparation, commission and aftermath of the crime and the connection of other persons, if any, in the crime. There may be circumstances in which the accused may provide information leading to discovery of material facts. It may be necessary to curtail his freedom in order to enable the investigation to proceed without hindrance and to protect witnesses and persons connected with the victim of the crime, to prevent his disappearance, to maintain law and order in the locality. For these or other reasons, arrest may become an inevitable part of the process of investigation. Therefore, factors such as nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, context of the events leading to the said charges, reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses, likelihood of presence being secured during trial, etc. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By: RAHUL SINGH Signing Date:21.02.2022 18:49 must be taking into account while deciding an application for anticipatory bail [Refer Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. v. State of Punjab, (Supra)]. 24. It is pertinent to note at this juncture that the Petitioner herein is evading arrest, despite having been served notices under Section 91/160 Cr.P.C. An NBW has also been issued against the Petitioner in FIR No. 63/2020. Apart from being accused of having siphoned off funds from the Complainant Company to the tune of Rs. 3.39 crores, the Petitioner has further been accused of forging the stamp of the Complainant Company as well as surreptitiously executing the Settlement Agreement dated 30.01.2018 that discharged the liability of the accused companies to pay Rs. 150 crores to the Complainant Company. 26. It must also be borne in mind that investigation is pending and the instant matter pertains to siphoning off of large amounts of public money which is an offence of a grave nature. Power to grant anticipatory bail in economic offences must be exercised sparingly as these offences stand on a different footing due their effect on the economic fabric of society [Refer P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24 ]. Therefore, granting anticipatory at this juncture may not only have a negative impact on Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By: RAHUL SINGH Signing Date:21.02.2022 18:49 the investigation in the case, but may also affect the faith that is reposed in the criminal justice system.” 9. Therefore, granting anticipatory at this juncture may not only have a negative impact on Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By: RAHUL SINGH Signing Date:21.02.2022 18:49 the investigation in the case, but may also affect the faith that is reposed in the criminal justice system.” 9. I have perused the materials available on record and considered the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties. Learned ASG has relied upon the decision in the case of Rajesh Chandulal Shah (supra), wherein the accused was found with the amount of illegal gratification and the demand and acceptance were completed and in the said decision also, the Court has dealt with all earlier decisions of this Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court and in all the cases, the trap was concluded and the person was found with illegal gratification amount so the offence was concluded under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The another decision relied upon by learned ASG is on the basis of the demand and acceptance. So far as acceptance in the present case is concerned, the same creates doubt because as per the prosecution case, the amount which was demanded by the accused, came to be deposited by the complainant in the account of Vardhman through Dhara Angadia Firm. Even it is also the case of the prosecution that co-accused Malav has made a phone call to the owner of Dhara Angadia Firm, but no record of phone calls of Dhara Angadia Firm produced on record. If it is presumed that the accused demanded an amount of undue advantage then also there is no evidence with regard to acceptance. 10. It is further the case of the prosecution that the applicant has created false evidence by using another email id and/or ticket of travelling from Gauhati to Jaipur and stayed at Blue Heaven Hotel at Jaipur, Rajasthan from 17.10.2022 to 26.10.2022, however, it does not mean that the applicant is having any intention and the prosecution has declared him as absconder and issued public advertisement and public notice in the media, social media and pasted “wanted” poster with the applicant’s name, photo and designation at various public places and near the houses of the applicant’s relatives. It seems that the complainant without there being any issuance of the notice visited the office of the applicant. It seems that the complainant without there being any issuance of the notice visited the office of the applicant. It is also the case of the applicant that there was discrepancy found in the evidence submitted before the Income Tax Department for the year 2018- 2019 and 2020-2021 which is never scrutinized and it was found by the concerned department that the complainant has to pay the crores of rupees and, therefore, there is likelihood of the complainant to file complaint against the accused with some ulterior motive. It is pertinent to note that the applicant was put under the list of the officers which suggests that he should not be placed on the sensitive post then how the applicant can demand or accept the amount of illegal gratification from the complainant and that fact was also required to be considered. It is further the case of the prosecution that in the year 2021, the accused was also put under the said list, but for that they have produced confidential record of the department. It is also pertinent to note that the applicant is the Additional Income Tax Commissioner and serving since last so many years and not involved in any antecedents. Considering all these aspects, the application deserves consideration. It also appears that the decisions relied upon by Mr.Vyas, learned ASG are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 11. Having perused the materials placed on record and taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of offences, role attributed to the accused, affidavit-in-reply and the affidavit-in-rejoinder, without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 12. This Court has considered following aspects; (i) The FIR is registered on 12.10.2022 for the offence which is alleged to have taken place on 04.10.2022. (ii) Learned APP under instructions of IO is unable to bring on record any special circumstances against the applicant. (iii) The role attributed to the applicant – accused; (iv) That the applicant is a Additional Income Tax Commissioner and no any other criminal antecedents against him; (v) There is creating serious doubt about demand and acceptance of the amount; (vi) There is no discovery or recovery from the applicant; 13. (iii) The role attributed to the applicant – accused; (iv) That the applicant is a Additional Income Tax Commissioner and no any other criminal antecedents against him; (v) There is creating serious doubt about demand and acceptance of the amount; (vi) There is no discovery or recovery from the applicant; 13. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors., reported at (1980) 2 SCC 665 and in the case of Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in AIR 2020 SC 831 . 14. In the case of Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in AIR 2020 SC 831 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held and observed in paragraph no.91 as under:- “This court, in the light of the above discussion in the two judgments, and in the light of the answers to the reference, hereby clarifies that the following need to be kept in mind by courts, dealing with applications under Section 438, Cr. PC: (1) Consistent with the judgment in Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others v. State of Punjab, 1980 (2) SCC 565 when a person complains of apprehension of arrest and approaches for order, the application should be based on concrete facts (and not vague or general allegations) relatable to one or other specific offence. The application seeking anticipatory bail should contain bare essential facts relating to the offence, and why the applicant reasonably apprehends arrest, as well as his side of the story. These are essential for the court which should consider his application, to evaluate the threat or apprehension, its gravity or seriousness and the appropriateness of any condition that may have to be imposed. It is not essential that an application should be moved only after an FIR is filed; it can be moved earlier, so long as the facts are clear and there is reasonable basis for apprehending arrest. (2) It may be advisable for the court, which is approached with an application under Section 438, depending on the seriousness of the threat (of arrest) to issue notice to the public prosecutor and obtain facts, even while granting limited interim anticipatory bail. (3) Nothing in Section 438 Cr. (2) It may be advisable for the court, which is approached with an application under Section 438, depending on the seriousness of the threat (of arrest) to issue notice to the public prosecutor and obtain facts, even while granting limited interim anticipatory bail. (3) Nothing in Section 438 Cr. PC, compels or obliges courts to impose conditions limiting relief in terms of time, or upon filing of FIR, or recording of statement of any witness, by the police, during investigation or inquiry, etc. While considering an application (for grant of anticipatory bail) the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence (including intimidating witnesses), likelihood of fleeing justice (such as leaving the country), etc. The courts would be justified - and ought to impose conditions spelt out in Section 437 (3), Cr. PC [by virtue of Section 438 (2)]. The need to impose other restrictive conditions, would have to be judged on a case by case basis, and depending upon the materials produced by the state or the investigating agency. Such special or other restrictive conditions may be imposed if the case or cases warrant, but should not be imposed in a routine manner, in all cases. Likewise, conditions which limit the grant of anticipatory bail may be granted, if they are required in the facts of any case or cases; however, such limiting conditions may not be invariably imposed. (4) Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion; equally whether and if so, what kind of special conditions are to be imposed (or not imposed) are dependent on facts of the case, and subject to the discretion of the court. (5) Anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial. (6) An order of anticipatory bail should not be blanket in the sense that it should not enable the accused to commit further offences and claim relief of indefinite protection from arrest. (5) Anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial. (6) An order of anticipatory bail should not be blanket in the sense that it should not enable the accused to commit further offences and claim relief of indefinite protection from arrest. It should be confined to the offence or incident, for which apprehension of arrest is sought, in relation to a specific incident. It cannot operate in respect of a future incident that involves commission of an offence. (7) An order of anticipatory bail does not in any manner limit or restrict the rights or duties of the police or investigating agency, to investigate into the charges against the person who seeks and is granted pre-arrest bail. (8) The observations in Sibbia regarding limited custody or deemed custody to facilitate the requirements of the investigative authority, would be sufficient for the purpose of fulfilling the provisions of Section 27, in the event of recovery of an article, or discovery of a fact, which is relatable to a statement made during such event (i.e deemed custody). In such event, there is no question (or necessity) of asking the accused to separately surrender and seek regular bail. Sibbia (supra) had observed that if and when the occasion arises, it may be possible for the prosecution to claim the benefit of Section 27 of the Evidence Act in regard to a discovery of facts made in pursuance of information supplied by a person released on bail by invoking the principle stated by this Court in State of U.P. v Deoman Upadhyaya. (9) It is open to the police or the investigating agency to move the court concerned, which grants anticipatory bail, for a direction under Section 439 (2) to arrest the accused, in the event of violation of any term, such as absconding, non-cooperating during investigation, evasion, intimidation or inducement to witnesses with a view to influence outcome of the investigation or trial, etc. (10) The court referred to in para (9) above is the court which grants anticipatory bail, in the first instance, according to prevailing authorities. (10) The court referred to in para (9) above is the court which grants anticipatory bail, in the first instance, according to prevailing authorities. (11) The correctness of an order granting bail, can be considered by the appellate or superior court at the behest of the state or investigating agency, and set aside on the ground that the court granting it did not consider material facts or crucial circumstances. (See Prakash Kadam & Etc. Etc vs Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta & Anr, (2011) 6 SCC 189 ; Jai Prakash Singh (supra) State through C.B.I. vs. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21 ). This does not amount to cancellation in terms of Section 439 (2), Cr. PC. (12) The observations in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra & Ors, 2011 (1) SCC 694 (and other similar judgments) that no restrictive conditions at all can be imposed, while granting anticipatory bail are hereby overruled. Likewise, the decision in Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, ( 1996 (1) SCC 667 ) and subsequent decisions (including K.L. Verma v. State & Anr, 1998 (9) SCC 348 ; Sunita Devi v. State of Bihar & Anr, 2005 (1) SCC 608 ; Adri Dharan Das v. State of West Bengal, 2005 (4) SCC 303 ; Nirmal Jeet Kaur v. State of M.P. & Anr, 2004 (7) SCC 558 ; HDFC Bank Limited v. J.J. Mannan, 2010 (1) SCC 679 ; Satpal Singh v. the State of Punjab, 2018 SCC Online (SC 415 and Naresh Kumar Yadav v Ravindra Kumar, 2008 (1) SCC 632 ) which lay down such restrictive conditions, or terms limiting the grant of anticipatory bail, to a period of time are hereby overruled. 15. In the result, the present application is allowed by directing that in the event of applicant herein being arrested pursuant to FIR registered as C.R No. RC0292022A0011 of 2022 before CBI/ACB/Gandhinagar Police Station, District: Gandhinagar, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 15. In the result, the present application is allowed by directing that in the event of applicant herein being arrested pursuant to FIR registered as C.R No. RC0292022A0011 of 2022 before CBI/ACB/Gandhinagar Police Station, District: Gandhinagar, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with one surety of like amount on the following conditions that the applicant shall : (a) cooperate with the investigation and make available for interrogation whenever required; (b) remain present at concerned CBI/ACB Police Station on 22.12.2022 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.; (c) not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; (d) not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police; (e) at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the investigating officer and the court concerned and shall not change residence till the final disposal of the case till further orders; (f) not leave India without the permission of the Court and if having passport shall deposit the same before the Trial Court within a week; and (g) it would be open to the Investigating Officer to file an application for remand if he considers it proper and just and the learned Magistrate would decide it on merits; 16. Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for police remand of the applicant. The applicant shall remain present before the learned Magistrate on the first date of hearing of such application and on all subsequent occasions, as may be directed by the learned Magistrate. This would be sufficient to treat the accused in the judicial custody for the purpose of entertaining application of the prosecution for police remand. This is, however, without prejudice to the right of the accused to seek stay against an order of remand, if, ultimately, granted and the power of the learned Magistrate to consider such a request in accordance with law. This is, however, without prejudice to the right of the accused to seek stay against an order of remand, if, ultimately, granted and the power of the learned Magistrate to consider such a request in accordance with law. It is clarified that the applicant, even if, remanded to the police custody, upon completion of such period of police remand, shall be set free immediately, subject to other conditions of this anticipatory bail order. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.