JUDGMENT 1. The crime number and the issue involved in all the three criminal petitions are one and the same and hence all the three criminal petitions are being disposed of with a common order. Crl.P.No.7265 of 2021 This petition is filed under Section 437 and 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C') seeking regular bail to the petitioner/A10 in connection with Crime No.29/2021 on the file of Crime Investigation Department (CID), Economic Offence Wing-II, CID, Andhra Pradesh, at Mangalagiri, Guntur District, wherein the petitioner is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 166, 167, 418, 420, 465, 468, 471, 409, 201, 109 r/w 34 & 37 IPC and sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. Heard Sri V.Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri V.Venkata Nagaraju, learned counsel for the petitioner/A10. 4. Brief facts of the case are that pursuant to the complaint dated 07.9.2021 addressed by the Chairman, Andhra Pradesh State Skill Development Corporation, Andhra Pradesh (for short APSSDC) to the Additional Director General of Police, Crime Investigation Department, Andhra Pradesh at Mangalagiri, the present crime was registered by the respondent police on 09.12.2021. In the said written complaint, it was alleged that the Government of Andhra Pradesh has issued orders vide G.O.Ms.No.47 (HE) (EC.A2) Department dated 13.12.2014 incorporating the APSSDC. The object of the project is to impart hi-end technology to the trainers. SIEMENS offers training program in collaboration with various State Governments. In the negotiations, the State Government has agreed to establish SIEMENS centers of excellence, technical skill development institutions and skill development centers. Six such clusters have been formed at the inception at cost of Rs.546,84,18,908/- with SIEMENS and Design Tech providing a grant-in-aid of Rs.491,84,18,908/- i.e. 90% and a Government share thereof is 10% i.e. Rs.55crores. A memorandum of agreement (for short MOA) has been entered into between APSSDC on one hand and SIEMENS on the other. SIEMENS is a combination of M/s. SIEMENS Industry Software (India) private limited and M/s. Design Tech Systems Private Limited. 5. A memorandum of agreement (for short MOA) has been entered into between APSSDC on one hand and SIEMENS on the other. SIEMENS is a combination of M/s. SIEMENS Industry Software (India) private limited and M/s. Design Tech Systems Private Limited. 5. A tax investigation by the Additional Director General, GST, Intelligence, Pune in respect of the claims of CENVAT credited by M/s. Design Tech Systems Private Limited and M/s Skillar enterprises India private limited led to huge financial scam involving crores of rupees by M/s. SIEMENS Industry Software India Private Limited and M/s. Design Tech Systems Private Limited. As per the MOA, the Design Tech has to provide training software development including various sub modules designed for high end software for advance manufacturing CAD/CAM. As per the investigation conducted by the Additional DGGI, Pune concluded that both the service provider and service receiver had taken contradictory stands regarding the nature of service regarding the nature of services. An in-depth scrutiny into the records by the ADGGI revealed that training software development including various sub-modules shown as supplied by Skillar to design tech were purchased by Skillar from... i) M/s Allied Computers International (Asia) Ltd., Mumbai (in short M/s.ACI). ii) M/s. Patrick Info services private limited (M/s I.T.Smith solutions private limited). iii) M/s. Inweb Info services Private limited all based at New Delhi. iv) M/s Arihanth Traders, New Delhi. v) M/s G.A.Sales Private Limited, New Delhi. The allegations are that all the above companies are shell/defunct companies and they were issuing invoices without providing any services and further alleged that all these companies have formed into a cartel to siphon the public funds running into crores of rupees. Basing on the said report, the Managing Director of APSSDC has lodged a report with CID through his written complaint dated 07.9.2021. 6. Basing on the complaint, the respondents have registered F.I.R.vide crime no.29/2021 dated 09.12.2021 with the following contents: I would like to bring to your notice that the Government has issued order vide G.O.Ms.No.47 (HE) (EC.A2) Department dated 13.12.2014 incorporating the APSSDC. The object of the project/scheme is to impart hi-end technology to the trainers. APSSDC has deputed a team to visit SIEMENS centers of excellence already established in Gujarath and to submit a report. SIEMENS offers training program in collaboration with various State Governments. The object of the project/scheme is to impart hi-end technology to the trainers. APSSDC has deputed a team to visit SIEMENS centers of excellence already established in Gujarath and to submit a report. SIEMENS offers training program in collaboration with various State Governments. The State Government has agreed to establish SIEMENS centers of excellence, technical skill development institutions and skill development centers in different clusters. Each cluster compromises of one center of excellence. Five technical skill development institutions of one center of excellence, five technical skill development institutions and skill development centers. Six such clusters have been formed at the inception at cost of Rs.546,84,18,908/- 90% and a government share thereof is 10% Rs.55crores. A MOA has been entered into between APSSDC on one hand and SIEMENS on the other. SIEMENS is a combination of M/s. SIEMENS Industry Software (India) private limited and M/s. Design Tech Systems Private Limited. The MOA is in furtherance of G.O.Ms.No.4, dated 30.6.2017 of skill development enterprises and innovation (Skills) Department. A tax investigation by the Additional Director General, GST, Intelligence, Pune in respect of the claims of CENVAT credited by M/s. Design Tech Systems Private Limited and M/s Skillar enterprises India private limited led to unearthing a huge financial scam involving crores of rupees by M/s. SIEMENS Industry Software India Private Limited and M/s. Design Tech Systems Private Limited. The funds release to Andhra Pradesh State Skill Development Corporation, Vijayawada (shortly referred to as APSSDC). As per the MOA, the Design Tech has to provide training software development including various sub modules designed for high end software for advance manufacturing CAD/CAM. The MOA does not contemplate to the contract. However, Siemens and designtek had sub-contracted a large part of the work to M/s. SIEMENS Enterprises private limited, New Delhi, with self-centric Solomon's wisdom. As a matter of fact, Skillar was established after DesignTech had entered into a contract with APSSDC. It is the claim of Designtek that Skillar has provided training software development including various sub-modules designed for high and software for advance manufacturing CAD/CAM. Skillar has directly supplied the same to the Skill Development Centers in Andhra Pradesh. Designtek further claims that royalty and subscription were paid to Skillar since they have developed the software. When tax authorities confronted Skillar, Skillar has claimed that no technical work has been subcontracted and the training software development including various sub-modules provided in the invoices. Skillar has directly supplied the same to the Skill Development Centers in Andhra Pradesh. Designtek further claims that royalty and subscription were paid to Skillar since they have developed the software. When tax authorities confronted Skillar, Skillar has claimed that no technical work has been subcontracted and the training software development including various sub-modules provided in the invoices. Thus, the Addl. D.G.G.I., Pune concluded that both the service provider and service receiver had taken contradictory stands regarding the nature of services. An in-depth scrutiny into the records by the ADGGI revealed that training software development including various sub-modules shown as supplied by Skillar to Designtech were purchased by Skillar from ... i) M/s Allied Computers International (Asia) Ltd., Mumbai (in short M/s.ACI). ii) M/s. Patrick Info services private limited, M/s I.T.Smith solutions private limited. iii) M/s. Inweb Info services Private limited all based at New Delhi. iv) M/s Arihanth Traders, New Delhi. v) M/s G.A.Sales Private Limited, New Delhi. All these companies are shell/defunct companies and they were issuing invoices without providing any services. It is patent that all these companies have formed into a cartel to siphoning the public funds turning to crores of rupees. The Addl. Director General, DGGSTI, Zonal Unit, Pune observed that no services were delivered by Skillar to DesignTech in their invoices depicting training software development including various sub-modules and royalty and subscription thereof. The Managing Director of DesignTech admitted before Asst. Director General that he does not have any evidence to show that services have been received from these companies. After financial irregularities have come to surface, directions have been given to APSSDC to conduct a forensic audit and to furnish a copy of the report for taking further action. Accordingly, a work order has been assigned to M/s. Sharath and Associates, Chartered Accountants Forensic Audit firm. The audit firm conducted an enquiry and submitted a report. The forensic audit is concerned with pointing out the flaws in policies, flaws in systems. Flaws in utilization of funds and analysis of various spending practices and to find out irregularities, misstatements, governance procedure, internal policies evaluation for the financial years 2014-15 to 2018-19. Various irregularities have been noticed by the team of auditors and the report thereof is self- explanatory. M/s. SIEMENS and Designtech have to oversee the functions of the clusters and their maintenance. Various irregularities have been noticed by the team of auditors and the report thereof is self- explanatory. M/s. SIEMENS and Designtech have to oversee the functions of the clusters and their maintenance. Instead of doing so both of them swindles crores of rupees in a dubious manner. Their acts affected the marrows of economic health of the State. As per the Memo No.143741/skill/2021 dated 11.7.2021 and 04.9.2021, the Managing Director, APSSDC is instructed to lodge a report with Crime Investigation Department to make a detailed probe into the case. I therefore, lodge this report for taking necessary legal action against the above M/s. SIEMENS and M/s Designtech and their bogus shell allies according to law. 7. In the above said F.I.R, the petitioner was shown as A10 and his designation was indicated as Chief Operating Officer, Skillar Enterprises India Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as PVSP IT Skills Projects Pvt. Ltd.) In fact the petitioner was appointed as financial advisor of M/s. Skillar enterprises India Pvt. Ltd thorough offer letter dated 01.4.2016 and around June 2017, the designation of the petitioner was changed as Chief Operating Officer for operational convenience. It is stated that the petitioner had stopped attending to the work at Skillar enterprises since October, 2017 on his health reasons and demitted the office from December 2017. 8. The contention of the petitioner in the said criminal petition is that A10 is neither a director/promoter/shareholder nor a key managerial personnel of M/s Skillar Enterprises India Pvt. Limited. Petitioner was a mere employee of the said firm and was never capable or authorized to take any major project related decisions on the project. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner never held any position in the management of M/s. Skillar Enterprises India Pvt. Limited. 9. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had contended that as shown in the F.I.R. that the petitioner was a chief operating officer is not correct. He never worked as chief operating officer. Initially he was financial advisor. He was never involved in the managerial activities of the Skillar Enterprises India Pvt. Limited. The petitioner was demitted the office in the month of December, 2017 itself on medical grounds and his medical condition is not good and he is regularly under the medical supervision. He has multiple co-morbidities and is an old patient of hypertension and requires strict and medical supervision. The petitioner was demitted the office in the month of December, 2017 itself on medical grounds and his medical condition is not good and he is regularly under the medical supervision. He has multiple co-morbidities and is an old patient of hypertension and requires strict and medical supervision. Even according to the medical report dated 04.12.2021 and 03.12.2021 shows that the petitioner is suffering with the following ailments. i. Primary hypertension. ii. Breathlessness iii. Diabetes Type II iv. Weight gain v. Urine frequency and urinary voiding vi. Liver enlargement vii. Gall-bladder adequately distended viii. B12 deficiency ix. Swelling of body x. Uric acid. 10. Learned Senior counsel further submitted that even as per the complaint dated 07.9.2021 have only allegations based on the report submitted by the Additional DGGI, Pune and even according to the said report of DGGI, Pune has only with the service provider and service receiver has taken contradictory stands. They have established a shell company and they were issuing invoices without providing any services. Though the allegations in the DGGI report is related to the financial irregularities but there is no mention about the siphoning of the funds. Even according to the complaint, M/s. Siemens and Designtech have to oversee the functions of the clusters and their maintenance. Instead of doing so both of them swindled crores of rupees in a dubious manner. There are no allegations against the petitioner company. However he submitted that even according to the remand report, it shows that the fraudulent acts and violations committed by the petitioner are as follows: 1. As per the investigation already done by DGGI, Pune, it is revealed that Mukul Agarwal worked previously with Mr. Soumyadri Shekhar Bose @ Suman Bose of SISW in Dassault Systems and SDRC (Structural Development and Research Corporation). 2. He came to know that DesignTech and Siemens were going to execute APSSDC project. 3. He expressed his desire with Bose and Vikas Khanvelkar to start a company independently and contacted Pravin Bhatia to set up a company and to handle this project for DesignTech and he worked as Chief Financial Officer of the PVSP IT Skills. Its name was later changed to Skillar Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 4. The PVSP/Skillar was created exclusively for execution of APSSDC project for DesignTEch. 5. Mukul Agarwal, Mr. Soumyadri Shekhar Bose @ Suman Bose and Mr. Its name was later changed to Skillar Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 4. The PVSP/Skillar was created exclusively for execution of APSSDC project for DesignTEch. 5. Mukul Agarwal, Mr. Soumyadri Shekhar Bose @ Suman Bose and Mr. Vikas Vinayak Khanvelkar designed a plan for diversion of the APSSDC funds through various shell companies. 6. Mr. Soumyadri Shekhar Bose @ Suman Bose and Mr. Vikas Vinayak Khanvelkar made various negotiations for rates and deliveries by various vendors to PVSP/Skillar in this project in connivance with Mukul Agarwal. 7. The vendors of PVSP/Skillar were decided by Bose and Khanvelkar prior to allotting the work to Skillar in connivance with Mukul Agarwal. 8. Vikas Khanvelkar of DesignTech made advance payment to PVSP/Skillar. 9. Mr. Mukul Agarwal of PVSP/Skillar used to make payments as per the directions of Mr. Bose and Khanvelkar and the transactions were done on the basis of documents/emails/instructions received from Mr. Bose and Khanvelkar. 10. Thus, Mukul Agarwal, Mr. Bose and Khanvelkar with preconceived mind created and used M/s PVSP/Skillar only for fraudulent transactions and for diversion of APSSDC funds without providing any services by raising bogus in voices in connivance with ACI. 11. It clearly emerges that Mukul Agarwal in connivance with Soumyadri Shekhar Bose @ Suman Bose, Mukul Agarwal, Mr. Vikas Vinayak Khanvelkar and officials of APSSDC has committed fraud and forgery, besides fabrication of books and accounts with malafide intention to misuse the APSSDC funds. Learned senior counsel has submitted that the above said allegations in the F.I.R. or in the remand report are inserted the strand and no case is established against the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 10.12.2021 and remanded and subsequently, the respondents have filed an application for police custody of the petitioner through Crl.M.P.No.282/2021 on the file of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada. But the said application was considered on merits and dismissed on 22.12.2021 with the following reasons: Admittedly, the petitioner/CID conducted searches and seized CPU, laptop, cell phones and some documents. Admittedly, the respondent/A10 is neither a director no promoter of the company and he is only an employee. Admittedly the GST official summoned respondent/A10 several times for enquiry before him he has produced all the available documents with him. The main accused/A1 was ready released on bail as per the bail orders of the Hon'ble High Court. Admittedly, the respondent/A10 is neither a director no promoter of the company and he is only an employee. Admittedly the GST official summoned respondent/A10 several times for enquiry before him he has produced all the available documents with him. The main accused/A1 was ready released on bail as per the bail orders of the Hon'ble High Court. When, the petitioner/CID conducted searches and seized some material before the arrest of the respondent/A10, what else information/material is to be collected from the respondent/A10. Even otherwise, considering the nature of the offence, everything is evidenced by documents and the petitioner/CID can seize the documents from company of the respondent/A10 and for that purpose, there is no need for custodial interrogation of the respondent/A10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again cautioned the subordinate Courts that police custody of accused cannot be granted in a routine manner without there being any valid grounds and purpose. Here, in the case on hand, prior to the arrest and during the course of searches, the petitioner/CID officials interrogated the respondent/A10 and since the material was also seized from the possession of respondent/A10, I am of the opinion that there is no need to grant police custody of the respondent/A10. From the aforesaid discussion, I see no grounds to order the police custody of the respondent/A10 as prayed for. Accordingly, these points are answered. 11. In the said circumstances the petitioner is no way concerned with the allegations made in the F.I.R. and remand report and the petitioner is not the director or share holder and he is only an employee and fact remains is that he demitted the office on medical grounds in the year December, 2017 itself. In view of the dismissal of the police custody by the Court below which was unchallenged by the respondents, it clearly discloses that the petitioner is continuing in the judicial remand which is neither required nor serve any purpose. 12. To support his contentions, he relied on the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment in between Sunil Bharti Mittal vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2015) 4 Supreme Court Cases 609 wherein it is recited that: No doubt, a corporate entity is an artificial person which acts through its officers, directors, managing director, chairman etc. 12. To support his contentions, he relied on the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment in between Sunil Bharti Mittal vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2015) 4 Supreme Court Cases 609 wherein it is recited that: No doubt, a corporate entity is an artificial person which acts through its officers, directors, managing director, chairman etc. If such a company commits an offence involving mens rea, it would normally be the intent and action of that individual who would act on behalf of the company. It would be more so, when the criminal act is that of conspiracy. However, at the same time, it is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that there is no vicarious liability unless the statute specifically provides so. Thus, an individual who has perpetrated the commission of an offence on behalf of a company can be made accused, along with the company, if there is sufficient evidence of his active role coupled with criminal intent. Second situation in which he can be implicated is in those cases where the statutory regime itself attracts the doctrine of vicarious liability, by specifically incorporating such a provision. In another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in between Arnab Manoranjan Goswami vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 427 wherein it is recited that: While considering an application for the grant of bail under Article 226 in a suitable case, the High Court must consider the settled factors which emerge from the precedents of this Court. These factors can be summarized as follows: (i) The nature of the alleged offence, the nature of the accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of a conviction; (ii) Whether there exists a reasonable apprehension of the accused tampering with the witnesses or being a threat to the complainant or the witnesses; (iii) The possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial or the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; (iv) The antecedents of and circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; (v) Whether prima facie the ingredients of the offence are made out, on the basis of the allegations as they stand, in the FIR; and (vi) The significant interests of the public or the State and other similar considerations. More than four decades ago, in a celebrated judgment in State of Rajasthan, Jaipur vs Balchand 39, Justice Krishna Iyer pithily reminded us that the basic rule of our criminal justice system is 'bail, not jail' 40. The High Courts and Courts in the district judiciary of India must enforce this principle in practice, and not forego that duty, leaving this Court to intervene at all times. We must in particular also emphasise the role of the district judiciary, which provides the first point of interface to the citizen. Our district judiciary is wrongly referred to as the =subordinate judiciary'. It may be subordinate in hierarchy but it is not subordinate in terms of its importance in the lives of citizens or in terms of the duty to render justice to them. High Courts get burdened when courts of first instance decline to grant anticipatory bail or bail in deserving cases. This continues in the Supreme Court as well, when High Courts do not grant bail or anticipatory bail in cases falling within the parameters of the law. The consequence for those who suffer incarceration are serious. Common citizens without the means or resources to move the High Courts or this Court languish as undertrials. Courts must be alive to the situation as it prevails on the ground - in the jails and police stations where human dignity has no protector. As judges, we would do well to remind ourselves that it is through the instrumentality of bail that our criminal justice system's primordial interest in preserving the presumption of innocence finds its most (1977) 4 SCC 308 These words of Justice Krishna Iyer are not isolated silos in our jurisprudence, but have been consistently followed in judgments of this Court for decades. Some of these judgments are: State of U.P. vs Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21 and Sanjay Chandra vs CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40 . PART J eloquent expression. The remedy of bail is the 'solemn expression of the humaneness of the justice system'41. Tasked as we are with the primary responsibility of preserving the liberty of all citizens, we cannot countenance an approach that has the consequence of applying this basic rule in an inverted form. We have given expression to our anguish in a case where a citizen has approached this court. Tasked as we are with the primary responsibility of preserving the liberty of all citizens, we cannot countenance an approach that has the consequence of applying this basic rule in an inverted form. We have given expression to our anguish in a case where a citizen has approached this court. We have done so in order to reiterate principles which must govern countless other faces whose voices should not go unheard. In view of the observations in the above said judgments, it is clear that the petitioner's involvement in the above said complaint, F.I.R/remand report are not specific. Hence learned senior counsel requested to consider the bail application on the above stated grounds and also on the medical reasons and he also submitted that he would obey the conditions imposed by this Court and also cooperate with the investigation. Crl.P.No.7339 of 2021 13. This petition is filed under Section 437 and 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C') seeking regular bail to the petitioner/A6 in connection with Crime No.29/2021 on the file of Crime Investigation Department (CID), Economic Offence Wing-II, CID, Andhra Pradesh, at Mangalagiri, Guntur District, wherein the petitioner is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 166, 167, 418, 420, 465, 468, 471, 409, 201, 109 r/w 120-B IPC and sections 13(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 14. Learned Senior Counsel Sri B.Adinarayana, appearing on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner/A6 submitted that basing on the contents of the F.I.R except stating that a huge financial scam involving crores of rupees by SIEMENS and Designtech systems private limited relating to the funds of APSSDC, Vijayawada, no allegations are made against the petitioner. In fact as per the report submitted by the DGCI, the designtech has to provide training software development through various sub-modules designed for high end software for advance manufacturing CAD/CAM. In fact according to the allegations, the designtech has supplied various sub-modules to the companies which are shell/defunct companies by issuing fake invoices without providing any service. Except that there are no allegations against the Siemens industries software India limited. The complaint made by the Chairman, APSSDC on 07.9.2021, the entire allegations are against the DigiTech and the other skillar forms. Except that there are no allegations against the Siemens industries software India limited. The complaint made by the Chairman, APSSDC on 07.9.2021, the entire allegations are against the DigiTech and the other skillar forms. In fact, the allegations in the said complaint is Siemens has to oversee the functions of the cluster and their maintenance instead of doing so, both of them swindled crores of rupees. Basing on the complaint, the respondents have registered the F.I.R. on 09.12.2021 and the petitioner was shown as A6 in the F.I.R. and he was arrested on 10.12.2021 and remanded to judicial custody on 12.12.2021. In the remand report, the following are the fraudulent acts/violations/mis-deeds committed by this petitioner on the following grounds: 1. He worked as Managing Director of SISW and he was project head of Siemens-APSSDC Project in AP., he entered into agreement with APSSDC for establishing 6 clusters comprising 1 COE and 5 TSDIs all falsely projected as worth Rs.3356 crores (Siemens and Designtech should contribute 90%-AP State Government should contribute 10% of the project). 2. He corresponded with the Govt. of AP and got released Rs.371 crores towards Govt. share in advance without executing any work by Technology partners. 3. He is the key person in making correspondence with top leaders of the then Govt. and top bureaucrats for getting release of funds of Rs.371 crores in advance in favour of DesignTech. 4. In the year 2017 officials of Directorate General of GST Intelligence Unit, Pune registered a case against DesignTech. After investigation they came to a conclusion that the APSSDC funds of Rs.371crores paid to DesignTech for establishing Skill Development Centers along with SISW were diverted by raising fake invoices through the various shell companies. Their investigation further concluded that the diverted amount again was routed back to DesignTech through bank accounts of different companies. The Directors of shell companies paid back the consideration amount to DesignTech after deducting their commission for issue of fake invoices. Further, it is established that much before entering into the agreement, MD, SISW in connivance with MD, DesignTech and others hatched a conspiracy to incorporate and to create a company exclusively to manage and to supply the material to Siemens Project of APSSDC. Further, it is established that much before entering into the agreement, MD, SISW in connivance with MD, DesignTech and others hatched a conspiracy to incorporate and to create a company exclusively to manage and to supply the material to Siemens Project of APSSDC. Pursuant of their conspiracy they incorporated and created a company by name PVSP IT Skills and DesignTech and sub-contracted significant part of the Siemens Project work aggregating to around Rs.241crores to the said company. Later, the amount was diverted from PVSP IT skills to a shell company called Allied Computers International (Asia) Ltd., and other associated shell companies by raising fake invoices. 5. The Siemens initiated an internal investigation based on notices received from DGGST Intelligence Unit, Pune, who investigated and concluded that the APSSDC funds were diverted by DesignTech by giving a sub-contract to PVSP IT Skillars from where the amount was diverted to various shell companies by raising fake invoices without providing any services or supplying any goods. 6. He along with his team members made email correspondence with the officials of APSSDC and finalized the draft of the manipulated and defective tripartite agreement to serve their vested interests. 7. With a preconceived mind, he affixed signature as Suman Bose on APSSDC Siemens Tripartite Agreement, which is quite different from the signature affixed as Soumayadri Shekhar Bose on agreement with Gujarat State. 8. He resigned from SISW on 27.3.2018 shortly after the commencement of investigation by Siemens. 9. Soon after commencement of investigation by Siemens, Soumayadri Shekhar Bose @ Suman Bose and his team members (GVS Bhaskar Prasad, Bhavana Gupta, Sateesh Kurup, Rahul Sehgal, Ashish Sharma, Naga Rama Pratap Bontha), deliberately deleted data from mobile handsets and laptops. 10. However, the investigation team of Siemens retrieved and imaged the deleted data from mobile handsets and laptops of Soumyadri Shekhar Bose @ Suman Bose by using software tools. 11. As per internal investigation report of Siemens, the collected evidence established that over a period of years, Mr. Suman Bose has been actively involved in the control of a number of companies external to Siemens that are involved as sub-contractors in the APSSDC-Siemens Project. 12. The whatsapp and SMS chats between MD, Siemens and Vikas Khanvelkar confirm that currency note numbers were exchanged as 'tokens' on multiple instances. Suman Bose has been actively involved in the control of a number of companies external to Siemens that are involved as sub-contractors in the APSSDC-Siemens Project. 12. The whatsapp and SMS chats between MD, Siemens and Vikas Khanvelkar confirm that currency note numbers were exchanged as 'tokens' on multiple instances. The messages also indicate that on submission of the token, cash was delivered to unknown authorized persons at various locations, (Hawala/Money laundering operations). 13. In April, 2015 Mr. Bose, Bhavna Gupta, GVS Bhaskar Prasad, Vikas Khanvelkar MD of DesignTech had several meetings with provestment group of companies (PVSP Group). The agenda of these meetings were to brief the PVSP group on the APSSDC project and proposed execution of the plan of utilizing of APSSDC grant of Rs.330 crores. 14. Further, the investigation established that Mr. Bose, Khanvelkar and Mr. Agarwal played an active role in setting up 'Skillar' as a project management entity for APSSDC project and the above three persons controlled the activities of Skillars. The remaining team members of Siemens Project had knowledge about creation of Skillars exclusively for Siemens project. Further, Mr. Bose did not share the above actions with other employees of SISW except his close associates/team members. 15. Further, all the negotiations, scope, management and discussions related to TalentEdge (supplier of manpower) and Knowledge Podium (supplier of course material) were performed by Suman Bose and his SISW team, i.e. GVS.Bhaskar Prasad, Bhavna Gupta, Naga Venkata Pratap Bontha, Ashish Sharma and later handed over to Skillar for raising the purchase orders. 16. Further, Mr. Soumyadri Shekhar Bose @ Suman Bose played active role in managing and controlling KnowledgePodium and he was the key person to discuss the strategy and its implementation. 17. There is a strong evidence to establish that Mr. Soumyadri Shekhar Bose @ Suman Bose played active role for creation of PVSP IT skills exclusively for Siemens project with an intention to divert and misuse APSSDC funds in connivance with MD, DesignTech and APSSDC officials. 18. Mr. Soumyadri Shekhar Bose @ Suman Bose brought the partners viz., DesignTech, PVSP, TalentEdge and KnowledgePodium together for APSSDC project. 19. Mr. Soumyadri Shekhar Bose @ Suman Bose had previous nexus with MD, DesignTech Mr. Vikas Vinayak Khanvelkar and Mukul Agarwal of Skillars since long back as they worked previously in HCL and Dassault. 20. 18. Mr. Soumyadri Shekhar Bose @ Suman Bose brought the partners viz., DesignTech, PVSP, TalentEdge and KnowledgePodium together for APSSDC project. 19. Mr. Soumyadri Shekhar Bose @ Suman Bose had previous nexus with MD, DesignTech Mr. Vikas Vinayak Khanvelkar and Mukul Agarwal of Skillars since long back as they worked previously in HCL and Dassault. 20. Mukul Agarwal joined the Skillars in February, 2016 when the money started flowing in to DesignTech from AP Government. Thus, the closely knit team of Mr.Soumyadri Shekhar Bose @ Suman Bose executed the entire plan with Vikas Khanvelkar who worked with Suman Bose since 1990 in HCL and Mukul Agarwal who worked together with Suman Bose in Dassault and SDRC. 21. Further, the investigation done by DGGSTI, Pune, indicated that some of the money was routed from Skillars to some Singapore Entity (Ink Fish Hospitality) and from there to Aptus Healthcare (India) Ltd. Through Hawala transactions. 22. Mr. GVS Bhaskar Prasad was CEO of Aptus Healthcare, he also played active role and assisted Mr. Soumyadri Shekhar Bose @ Suman Bose in APSSDC-Siemens Project. 23. Further, the shareholding of KnowledgePodium is with a trust by name Seed Go Trust fund, which was registered in Singapore. Mr. Mukul Agarwal is also having shareholding in the trust. 24. Further, KnowledgePodium failed to deliver the number of online training modules and also modules got diluted. It happened based on the instructions of Mr. Suman Bose and the officials of APSSDC also connived with him. 25. On the instructions of Mr. Bose and Khanvelkar, Mr. Deepak Yadav went to U.K. to make some Hawala transactions secretly. 26. Further, it was established that Bill of material attached with MoU/Agreement is very different from the bill of material actually supplied/executed at various CoEs and TSDIs. 27. DesignTech had used a shell company M/s. Allied Computers International (Asia) Ltd., as a mechanism to obtain improper benefits by using fake invoices raised by the shell companies. The funds released by APSSDC were pilfered off through this modus operandi. 28. It clearly emerges that Mr. Suman Bose in connivance with Mukul Agarwal, and Mr. Vikas Vinayak Khanvelkar, Ghanta Subbarao, Dr.K.Lakshminarayana and NVK Prasad has committed fraud and forgery, besides fabrication of books and accounts with malafide intention to misuse the APSSDC funds. 15. The funds released by APSSDC were pilfered off through this modus operandi. 28. It clearly emerges that Mr. Suman Bose in connivance with Mukul Agarwal, and Mr. Vikas Vinayak Khanvelkar, Ghanta Subbarao, Dr.K.Lakshminarayana and NVK Prasad has committed fraud and forgery, besides fabrication of books and accounts with malafide intention to misuse the APSSDC funds. 15. Learned senior counsel has further submitted that the show cause notice issued on 30.12.2020 by the Director General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence is that M/s. Designtech systems are mainly engaged in three lines of business 1. Distribution of PLM software of Siemens, 2. Product design and engineering services for automotive OEMS and auto component suppliers and 3. CAD CAM CAE and IT training. M/s Design Tech Systems limited is largely paying service tax under the category of information technology service. A show cause notice has been issued under the provisions of Section 73(1) of the Act to designtech and PVSP/Skillar within five years of the date of filing of their ST-3 returns. Accordingly, the present show cause notice, issued to Designtech and PVSP/Skillar is well within the prescribed period under the provisions of Section 73(1) of the Act read with chapter V of The Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of certain provisions) Ordinance, 2020 dated 31.03.2020 wherein the last date has been initially extended up to 30.6.2020 and further extended up to 30.9.2020. Even in the show cause notice liability has been fixed against the PVSP/Skillar only. 16. Further learned senior counsel has submitted that the documents which were related by the Managing Director, APSSDC is mainly on incident report of the DGGST, Pune and forensic aid report of Sarath and associates, chartered accountants and the internal report of the Siemens. Even according to the internal report of the Siemens dated 12.4.2019 findings are that based on the material facts establish during the investigation as well as the testimonial evidence it can be concluded that there are strong indications which point to the fact that Mr. Bose, ex SISW CEO played an active role in a scheme together with mentioned external vendors and their owners with the purpose of misusing public funds. Except that there are no clear indications/allegations against the petitioner. Bose, ex SISW CEO played an active role in a scheme together with mentioned external vendors and their owners with the purpose of misusing public funds. Except that there are no clear indications/allegations against the petitioner. Further more in the forensic audit report submitted by the Sarath and associates, chartered accounts in conclusion the allegations made against the petitioner is as follows: As per the MOA and license agreements between APSSDC, Designtech and Siemens, the actual signatory for Siemens was Mr. Soumyadri Sekhar Bose as a Managing Director but the MOA was signed by Mr. Suman Bose. As per the Siemens email dated 25.9.2020 informed that Mr. Soumyadri Sekhar Bose also called as Mr. Suman Bose. However, the signatures are completely different, and the MOA is signed without mentioning the date of signing and without mentioning the government sanction letter number and date. 17. Except that there are no allegations about the misappropriation of funds. Further learned senior counsel has relied on the preliminary report submitted to the Addl. Director General of Police, CID, Mangalagiri wherein at paragraph number 40 it clearly indicates that the APSSDC requested services of the Central Institute of Tool Design (CITD) for an independent third party valuation of the SIEMENS project of skill development and the CITD accepted the request through its letter dated 05.12.2015. Reply to the said letter the CITD has submitted its request on 04.01.2016 wherein it clearly indicated that the then Principal Director CITD Sri Shujayat Khan submitted preliminary report on valuation of the project to Sri L.Premachandra Reddy, IAS, Secretary to Government. Accordingly, the work was entrusted to CITD by the skill development, Entrepreneurship & Innovation Department. Later CITD has submitted its valuation report on 22.3.2016 to Sri L.Prema Chandra Reddy, IAS, the then Principal Secretary, Department of Skill Development. 18. Finally the learned senior counsel has relied on the allegations made in the remand report. As per the allegations made in the remand report that the petitioner being a managing director of SISW he entered into an agreement with APSSDC for establishing six clusters comprising one COE and 5 TSDI are falsely projected as worth Rs.3356 crores (Siemens and Designtech should contribute 90%-AO State Government should contribute 10% of the project). As per the allegations made in the remand report that the petitioner being a managing director of SISW he entered into an agreement with APSSDC for establishing six clusters comprising one COE and 5 TSDI are falsely projected as worth Rs.3356 crores (Siemens and Designtech should contribute 90%-AO State Government should contribute 10% of the project). Second ground is that he corresponded with the Government of Andhra Pradesh and got released Rs.371 crores towards Government share in advance without executing any work by technology partners. And further the Siemens has initiated an internal investigation based on notices received from DGGST Intelligence Unit, Pune, who investigated and concluded that the APSSDC funds were diverted by Design Tech by giving a sub-contract to PVSP IT Skillars from where the amount was diverted to various shell companies by raising fake invoices without providing any services or supplying any goods. With a preconceived mind, he affixed signature as Suman Bose on APSSDC Siemens Tripartite agreement, which is quite different from the signature affixed as Soumayadri Sekhar Bose on agreement with Gujarat State. Soon after commencement of investigation by Siemens, Soumayadri Shekhar bose @ Suman Bose and his team members (GVS Bhaskar Prasad, Bhavana Gupta, Satheesh Kurup, Rahul Sehgal, Ashish Sharma, Naga Rama Pratap Bontha) deliberately deleted date from mobile handsets and laptops. However, the preliminary investigation established that Mr. Bose, Khanvelkar and Mr. Agarwal played an active role in setting up Skillar as a project management entity for APSSDC project and the above three persons controlled the activities of skillars. Finally held that the bill of material attached with MoU/agreement very different from the Bill of material actually supplied/executed at various CoEs and TSDIs. 19. In all the above allegations there are no specific allegations that the petitioner has swallowed the amounts of the APSSDC or how he has diverted the funds of APSSDC to his personal funds and there is no whisper that the amount said to have been paid by the APSSDC is transferred to the account of the petitioner. 20. Finally the learned senior counsel has submitted that the respondents have filed criminal petition before the Special Court for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada for police custody of the petitioner and the same was considered by the Court and dismissed on 22.12.2021. In view of the said circumstances, the requirement of the petitioner in jail would not arise. 20. Finally the learned senior counsel has submitted that the respondents have filed criminal petition before the Special Court for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada for police custody of the petitioner and the same was considered by the Court and dismissed on 22.12.2021. In view of the said circumstances, the requirement of the petitioner in jail would not arise. He also relied on the judgment report above and as per the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the petitioner is not required to be continued in jail and hence requested to grant bail. Crl.P.No.31 of 2022: 21. This petition is filed under Section 437 and 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C') seeking regular bail to the petitioner/A8 in connection with Crime No.29/2021 on the file of Crime Investigation Department (CID), Economic Offence Wing-II, CID, Andhra Pradesh, at Mangalagiri, Guntur District, wherein the petitioner is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 166, 167, 418, 420, 465, 468, 471, 409, 201, 109 r/w 34 & 37 IPC and sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 22. Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner/A8 has mainly contended that the allegations made by the Chairman, APSSDC in his complaint dated 07.9.2021 itself clearly discloses that the petitioner has to pay 55 crores only as their share of 10%. In the complaint he has specifically stated that as per MoA, DesignTech has to provide training software development including various sub-modules designed for high end software for advance manufacturing CAD/CAM. The MoA does not contemplate sub-contract. But contra, Siemens and Designtech has subcontracted a large part of its work to M/s. Skillar enterprises private limited, New Delhi. As a matter of fact, skillar was established after designtech had entered into a contract with APSSDC. Even in the said complaint they have admitted that the skillar has provided training software development including various sub-modules designed for high and software for advance manufacturing CAD/CAM. They have also admitted that the Skillar has directly supplied the same to the skill development centers in Andhra Pradesh. So in view of the above said complaint, there are no allegations that the petitioner has not acted as per the MoU. They have also admitted that the Skillar has directly supplied the same to the skill development centers in Andhra Pradesh. So in view of the above said complaint, there are no allegations that the petitioner has not acted as per the MoU. In fact as per the MoU, the petitioner and the Skillar has supplied both hardware and software and they have established six clusters as per the MoU and they have also imparted training both to the faculty and students. It is not the case of the complainant that the petitioner has not supplied the software and hardware as per the MoU. 23. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the petitioner is still continuing and the project is ongoing even as on today. They have been providing software, hardware and conducting clusters and imparting training to both faculty and students. Hence the question of siphoning of funds of the department would not arise. It is not their case they have not supplied hardware or software as per the MoU. In the complaint also they have based on the AGGST the Skillar has established certain companies and supplied the material and raised fake invoices is only matter of GST and which is nothing to do with the implementation of the project or diversion of the funds of the State Government. In fact, learned senior counsel has specifically stated in their grounds that they have raised six clusters as individual tripartite agreement has set up four years back and each cluster contains one center of excellence (COE) and 5 to 6 technical skill development institutions (TSDI) which are popularly called as skill development centers. Accordingly at about 40 skill development centers which includes six centers of excellence established across the State and as many as 2,15,000 students are already benefitted through the training imparted by these centers. The said records are available with Siemens centers software as well as APSSDC. 24. Learned Senior counsel further submitted that in fact the petitioner has extended his full cooperation to the investigating authorities even according to the letter dated 12.10.2021, the petitioner has furnished all the details which requested by the respondents. The said records are available with Siemens centers software as well as APSSDC. 24. Learned Senior counsel further submitted that in fact the petitioner has extended his full cooperation to the investigating authorities even according to the letter dated 12.10.2021, the petitioner has furnished all the details which requested by the respondents. It shows that since three months, the petitioner is cooperating with the investigation and whatever the request made by them, the petitioner has submitted and the same was established in the order passed by the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada vide its order dated 22.12.2021. Further the Court has considered that the CID had conducted searches in the residence and office of the petitioner and seized laptop, cell phone and some documents and the court has also observed that the respondent/A8 was served with questionnaire by the petitioner/CID to which he answered and it is not disputed by the petitioner/CID. Observing the same, the said application was dismissed. 25. Finally learned senior counsel has relied on the medical reports annexed along with the bail application. Further submitted that the petitioner is 65 years old and he has medical ailments even according to the report annexed along with the petitioner, the petitioner is suffering from change of voice, breathlessness, bilateral abductor palsy and swelling due to infection or inflammation. In view of the same, the petitioner would cooperate with the investigating agency and prayed to consider the bail application. 26. Learned Additional Advocate General appeared on behalf of the respondents/State. After notice Sri M.Dhanunjayudu, IO, DSP, EOW-II, CID, Head Quarters, Mangalagiri, Andhra Pradesh had filed counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents. The averments in the counter is that the Government has issued an order vide G.O.Ms.No.4 dated 30.6.2015, wherein the Government accorded permission to APSSDC to enter into MoU with Siemens Industry Software India Pvt. Limited (in short SISW) an entity of Siemens and DesignTech, Pune for setting up of skill development centers named as clusters. Each cluster comprising one center of excellence and six technical skill development centers across the State of Andhra Pradesh in selected educational institutions. The name of the project is called as APSSDC-SIEMENS project. Each cluster comprising one center of excellence and six technical skill development centers across the State of Andhra Pradesh in selected educational institutions. The name of the project is called as APSSDC-SIEMENS project. As per the cost of each cluster is Rs.546,84,18,908/- and the Siemens and Designtech contribute 90% of the project cost as grant in aid and the remaining 10% has to be contributed by the Government of A.P. and 10% contribution comes to Rs.370,78,80,000/- including taxes. Basing on the said G.O. the APSSDC entered into an agreement without any date and without mentioning nature of grant in aid percentage of contribution of grant in aid by SIEMENS and DesignTech. More particularly it can be seen that the sanction terms of disbursement of the financial assistance was kept intentionally blank to accommodate the disbursement of monies. As per the above said agreement, the SISW shall provide the PLM software and further act as technology partner to actively collaborate and assist DesignTech in running various skill development centers in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The DesignTech(A4) shall act as proposer, implementer and system integrator for overall project in active collaboration and assistance with SISW. It shall set up CoEs, t-SDIs and SDCs by supplying, installing and system integrating the hardware, software and courseware from SISW and other suppliers in the State of Andhra Pradesh. But DesignTech purchased certain items from suppliers outside the State of A.P. Before entering into the agreement, the A1 made e-mail correspondence since March 2015 with A-6 and A-8 and others in preparing the draft agreement. Later the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.5 dated 25.4.2016 selected 6 educational institutions as CoEs and 36 educational institutions as t-SDIs for setting up skill development centers. 27. Subsequent to the agreement with APSSDC and SISW, the DesignTech, in turn, entered into a sub-contract with (A-5) i.e. PVSP IT Skills Pvt., Ltd., later name changed to M/s Skillar enterprise India Pvt. Ltd which was incorporated on 30.7.2015 just one month after the execution of the APSSDC- SIEMENS project agreement and issued purchase order to the tune of Rs.241crores for the supply of material for the project. The A5 skillar does not have any previous experience for the supply or huge value of material as it was incorporated just one month after the execution of the agreement. The A5 skillar does not have any previous experience for the supply or huge value of material as it was incorporated just one month after the execution of the agreement. A5 PVSP/Skillar in turn issued purchase orders to A27 allied computers international (Asia) Ltd. which was declared as a shell company by Central Government Agencies. A27 was a defunct company and was being used only to issue bogus invoices without the supply of any material or providing any services only to accommodate entries. Similarly, the A5 also issued purchase orders to other shell companies namely M/s. Patrick Info Services Pvt. Ltd., IT Smith Solutions Pvt., Ltd., Inweb Services Pvt. Ltd. The said shell companies issued fake invoices and routed back the amount to PVSP/Skillar (A5) and A4 through associated shell companies by layering the funds after deducting commission for raising bogus invoices. 28. The officials of Directorate General, GST Intelligence Unit, PUne, registered a case under the provisions of GST Act and Finance Act and conducted a detailed investigation in the year 2018. According to the said investigation it is established that the APSSDC funds, which were released to DesignTech(A4) and it was transferred to others through Hawala transactions with the help of shell companies by raising fake invoices for layering the funds. 29. After commencement of GST investigation, the Siemens Global Team conducted an internal investigation separately and concluded that A6 Soumyadri Shekhar Bose in connivance with A8 Vikas Vinayak Khavelkar, MD of DesignTech(A4), Mukul Chandra Agarwal (A10), and his project team members had used the above shell companies as a mechanicm to obtain illegal benefits through the use of invoices issued by the shell companies for diversion of APSSDC funds. Even before filing the complaint with APCID, the APSSDC officials got conducted a forensic audit on the Siemens Project and the forensic auditor in his report concluded that M/s. DesignTech and M/s. SISW diverted the APSSDC funds to the tune of Rs.241,78,61,508/- through various associate shell companies by raising fake/bogus invoices out of Rs.371 crores released by APSSDC to DesignTech. The said report also revealed that M/s DesignTech and M/s Siemens have utilized and invested only a meager amount towards the project out of the Government contribution of Rs.370.78crores (10%) and diverted a significant amount without investing a single rupee towards their contribution of 90% grant-in- aid by violating the terms and references proposed in G.O.Ms.No.4 dated 30.6.2015. The said report also revealed that M/s DesignTech and M/s Siemens have utilized and invested only a meager amount towards the project out of the Government contribution of Rs.370.78crores (10%) and diverted a significant amount without investing a single rupee towards their contribution of 90% grant-in- aid by violating the terms and references proposed in G.O.Ms.No.4 dated 30.6.2015. 30. Reply to the petition filed by A10 in Crl.P.No.7265 of 2021 stated that the APSSDC entered into an agreement with SISW and DesignTech for establishing skill development centers pursuing G.O.Ms.No.4 dated 30.6.2015. As contended by the petitioner that a tender was quoted, and SISW and A-4/DesignTech has success in securing the tender is false. The SISW and A-4/DesignTech entered into a tripartite agreement with APSSDC without calling for tenders. As contended by A10, that SISW and A4 have only selected the vendors (shell companies) is not true because of A8, MD of A4 and A6, MD of SISW and the petitioner had earlier worked together in different companies and they are close associates since long back. The petitioner in connivance with A6 and A8, with fraudulent and dishonest intention in pursuance of a conspiracy, hatched a plan among themselves to create a company to divert the APSSDC funds. In pursuance of their conspiracy, the petitioner, A6, A8 incorporated a company namely A5 PVSP IT later changed to Skillar enterprises Pvt. Ltd. On 30.8.2015 after entering into the agreement. The petitioner has complete knowledge about the creation of the new company. As such the contention of the petitioner that A5 was only a project management company and it was operated as per the directions of A4 and SISW. 31. As contended by the petitioner that he was only appointed as financial adviser and later as chief operating officer of the A-5/Skillar Enterprises is false. The petitioner in connivance with other accused incorporated the company exclusively to divert the APSSDC funds by raising fake/bogus invoices through various associated shell companies. 32. Considering the above said aspects FIR was registered after considering the findings of the DGGST investigation, SIEMENS Internal investigation, and Forensic audit report. In all the reports it is conclusively established that the petitioner in connivance with the other accused played an active role in getting fake invoices and in routing the diverted amount back to the DesignTech and others assigned by it. In all the reports it is conclusively established that the petitioner in connivance with the other accused played an active role in getting fake invoices and in routing the diverted amount back to the DesignTech and others assigned by it. Finally considering all the aforesaid facts and circumstances and huge magnitude of the fraud running into several crores of rupees, the IO is still in the process of securing various incriminating documents/records from various Central and State Government Agencies including Income Tax Authorities, GST officials, ROC authorities, Bank officials to correlate and verify the nature and quantum of fraud and modus operandi adopted for incorporating shell companies, raising of fake invoices, routing back the amount through various associated shell companies. Hence petitioner, does not deserve for bail. With the identical allegations the counters were filed in all the three criminal petitions. 33. Learned Additional Advocate General after hearing the elaborate arguments advanced by all the three senior counsel, on instructions, has submitted that without going into the merits of the case, he requested couple of weeks time. In the meanwhile, the respondent investigating agency would complete the investigation and hence remand of the petitioners would not require further. 34. Learned Additional Advocate General has further submitted that on perusal of the tripartite agreement entered in is vague and the clauses of the said agreement are more beneficial to the petitioners and no proper care has taken while entering into the said agreement. Further he has also submitted that on perusal of the reports of DGGST, forensic audit report and the internal report it clearly establishes that the involvement of the petitioners in the above said crime. The petitioners with a fraudulent intention have created shell companies and by raising fake invoices, they have swallowed almost 270 crores of the APSSDC funds. 35. Considering the submissions made by all the senior counsel and Additional Advocate General, as contended by the petitioners there are no specific allegations against the petitioners either in the F.I.R or in the remand report and there is no basis in the said documents the involvement of the petitioners in the alleged offences. Even there are no indications of personal involvement of beneficiaries in the said offences by the petitioners. 36. The object of bail is to secure appearance of the accused person at his trial by a reasonable amount of bail. Even there are no indications of personal involvement of beneficiaries in the said offences by the petitioners. 36. The object of bail is to secure appearance of the accused person at his trial by a reasonable amount of bail. Unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial where called upon. As observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments, the basic principle of our criminal justice system is bail, not jail. 37. Considering the specific contentions of the learned Additional Advocate General that the investigating agency requires couple of weeks to conclude the investigation and after that there is no necessity of judicial custody of the petitioners and also in view of the rejection of the petition filed by the CID in the Court below for police custody of the petitioners herein and the same was unchallenged by the respondents. The Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada in its order categorically stated that prior to the arrest and during the course of searches, the respondents herein interrogated the petitioners and the material was also seized from the possession of the petitioners. Hence there is no necessity to grant of police custody of the petitioners. Considering the above, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail, but with some conditions. 38. In the result, all the three criminal petitions are allowed and the petitioners/A10, A6 and A8 shall be enlarged on bail in connection with Crime No.29/2021 of CID, Economic Offence Wing-II, CID, Andhra Pradesh at Mangalagiri, Guntur District on their executing self bond for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) each with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the III Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada. The petitioners/A10, A6 and A8 shall appear before the investigating officer twice in a week i.e. on every Tuesday and Saturday from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. The petitioners shall not leave India without prior permission from the investigating authority and they shall cooperate with the investigation. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.