JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J. 1. Heard Shri D. Das, learned Senior Counsel along with Shri Z. Kamar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri A. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner, namely, Shri Chintan Jain, who has filed this bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. praying for bail in connection F.I.R. No. RC AC-12021A0011 registered under Section 120-B, IPC read with Sections 7/8/12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The petitioner was arrested on 14.12.2021. 3. At the outset, the learned counsel has fairly submitted that on an earlier occasion, this Court vide an order dated 01.04.2022 has rejected the application for bail of the petitioner. 4. Pursuant to the order dated 14.06.2022, Shri S.C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, CBI has produced the Case Diary. 5. To examine the issue regarding grant of bail, the facts of the case may be noted down briefly. 6. The case registered is with regard to criminal conspiracy, demand and acceptance of bribe by public servants, obtaining undue advantage without consideration by public servants. The prosecution's version is that during the year 2020-2021, the petitioner, who is a businessman doing contract work with the Railways entered into a criminal conspiracy with one Shri Ranjit Kumar Borah, Deputy Chief Electrical Engineer/Coaching, N.F. Railway. The petitioner, who is connected with a Company namely M/s Sunshine Devices Pvt. Ltd. as a Director and a Sister Concern Firm namely M/s Sunshine was extended undue favours in connection with various contracts of the NF Railway in lieu of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. In the aforesaid manner, Shri R.K. Borah was favoured with two numbers of immovable properties as illegal gratifications. However, on 28.10.2021, Shri Borah had demanded from the petitioner illegal gratification of Rs. 2.10 crores in lieu of the two immovable properties. There was also a demand for a mobile phone worth Rs. 1.3 lakhs by Shri Borah. 7. In course of the demand, various amounts were paid from time to time. On 14.12.2021, an amount was allegedly collected by Shri Niraj Kumar, employee of the petitioner from Shri Vijay Kumar Upadhyaya, who was working as Chief Engineer (Electrical), N.F. Railway, Maligaon and was delivered to Shri R.K. Borah. It was at that stage, when the Investigating Agency had intervened and recovery of Rs. 15 lakhs (approximately) was made. Allegations of recovery of Rs. It was at that stage, when the Investigating Agency had intervened and recovery of Rs. 15 lakhs (approximately) was made. Allegations of recovery of Rs. 2.12 crores (approx) from the residence of Shri Vijay Kumar Upadhyaya at NOIDA is also there. 8. Shri Das, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the earlier round of litigation wherein three nos. of bail petitions were moved together, the thrust was more on default bail by stating that even without completion of the investigation, the Charge Sheet was filed just prior to expiry of the statutory period. However, the said contention was not accepted and accordingly, the bail petitions were rejected. 9. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as on date the petitioner is behind the bars for 225 days and the Charge Sheet has been filed and the charges are to be framed. He further submits that one co-accused namely V.K. Upadhyay has already been released on bail. As regards to the other aspects of the matter, it is submitted that the petitioner is no way connected to the Firm M/s Sunshine which was allotted a number of contracts by the Railways and M/s Sunshine Devices Pvt. Ltd. is a different entity altogether. The petitioner has categorically denied that Niraj Kumar is his employee. The learned Senior Counsel has also submitted that the rights of the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been violated. It is accordingly submitted that the petitioner has already suffered immensely and therefore, he be released on bail so that he is in a better position to prepare his defence. 10. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance from the following case laws: (i) Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40 (ii) P. Chidambaram vs. CBI, (2020) 13 SCC 337 (iii) Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI, 2022 SCC Online SC 825 11. In the case of Sanjay Chandra (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering applications for bail connected with the 2G spectrum scam. The Hon’ble Court had discussed the factors which are liable to be taken into consideration for grant of bail and emphasized on having a balanced approach in such matters. Emphasis has been made on paragraph 24 of the said judgment which is extracted herein-below: “24. The Hon’ble Court had discussed the factors which are liable to be taken into consideration for grant of bail and emphasized on having a balanced approach in such matters. Emphasis has been made on paragraph 24 of the said judgment which is extracted herein-below: “24. In the instant case, we have already noticed that the “pointing finger of accusation” against the appellants is “the seriousness of the charge.” The offences alleged are economic offences which have resulted in loss to the State exchequer. Though, they contend that there is a possibility of the appellants tampering with the witnesses, they have not placed any material in support of the allegation. In our view, seriousness of the charge is, no doubt, one of the relevant considerations while considering bail applications but that is not the only test or the factor: the other factor that also requires to be taken note of is the punishment that could be imposed after trial and conviction, both under the Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. Otherwise, if the former is the only test, we would not be balancing the constitutional rights but rather recalibrating the scales of justice.” 12. In the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorized various offences and has issued guidelines for grant of bail based on such categorization. By drawing the attention of this Court to paragraph 66 of the said judgment, it has been submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in dealing with economic offences the gravity of the offence, the object of the Special Act and the attending circumstances are few of the factors which are directed to be taken note of along with the period of the sentence. While laying down the said guidelines, reference has been made to the earlier case of P. Chidambaram (supra). Further, paragraph 67 has also been referred to with regard to the role of the Court. 13. Per contra, Shri Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, CBI has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail. By referring to the objection by way of affidavit filed on 19.07.2022, it is submitted that the allegations are very serious in nature which involves a bribe amount of Rs. 13. Per contra, Shri Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, CBI has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail. By referring to the objection by way of affidavit filed on 19.07.2022, it is submitted that the allegations are very serious in nature which involves a bribe amount of Rs. 2.10 Crores and the said allegations is in connection with favouring the petitioner who is in control of the third party Firm with constructions works by certain officials of the Railways. It is submitted that the present accused is the main culprit who is involved in delivery of the bribe of Rs. 15 lakhs approximately at the residence of one of the officers at Guwahati. It is further submitted that as many as 31 calls were made between the petitioner and other accused who were involved in the illegal transactions. It has been submitted that the petitioner in connivance with accused R.K. Borah had purchased Benami Flat No. D-801, Platinum Tower, Sector 28, Gurugram in January/February, 2019 and the same was registered in the name of M/s Sunshine and the original documents were in the custody of Shri Borah. However, later the demand was changed to Rs. 2.1 Crore for which the aforesaid flat was to be sold through one broker Shri Amit Jain. In paragraph 17 of the said affidavit, it has been categorically stated that the petitioner had delivered bribe amount of Rs. 2 Lakh, Rs. 5 Lakh, Rs. 4 Lakh and Rs. 15 lakh to accused Shri R.K. Borah on 24.11.2021, 05.12.2021, 04.12.2021 and 14.12.2021 through his employee Niraj Kumar. In paragraphs 22 and 23 of the affidavit, the CBI has stated that the college fee of the daughter of accused Vijay Kumar Upadhyaya has been paid by the petitioner in the account of Amity University, NOIDA and 69 numbers of Air Tickets amounting to Rs. 8,01,621/- have been purchased by the petitioner for the personal Air Journey of accused Upadhyaya. It is submitted that there are prima facie materials to come to a finding based upon which, the present petitioner is liable to be convicted. 14. By drawing the attention of this Court to paragraph 25 of the affidavit, it is submitted that the case in hand involves intricate financial transactions including hawala which requires further probe and during the police remand, it was found that the petitioner was not cooperating with the investigation. 14. By drawing the attention of this Court to paragraph 25 of the affidavit, it is submitted that the case in hand involves intricate financial transactions including hawala which requires further probe and during the police remand, it was found that the petitioner was not cooperating with the investigation. It is further submitted that some more important witnesses are to be examined and crucial documentary elements are to be unearthed and collected. 15. In support of his submissions, the learned Standing Counsel, CBI has placed reliance upon the following case laws: (i) State of M.P. vs. Ram Singh, (2000) 5 SCC 88 (ii) State of M.P. vs. Sambhu Dayal Nagar, (2006) 8 SCC 693 (iii) Dipak Shubhashchandra Mehta vs. CBI and Another, AIR 2012 SC 949 (iv) Ash Mohammad vs. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu and Another, (2012) 9 SCC 446 (v) Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal vs. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 4 SCC 642 (vi) Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439 (vii) Nimmagadda Prasad vs. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 466 (viii) Subramaniam Swamy vs. Director CBI, (2014) 8 SCC 682 (ix) State of Bihar vs. Amit Kumar, (2017) 13 SCC 751 (x) Rounak Ali Hazarika vs. State of Assam, B.A. No. 3291/2021, dated 31.01.2022 16. In the case of Ram Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has made scathing remarks against the menace of corruption. In paragraph 8 the following has been stated: “8. Corruption in a civilised society is a disease like cancer, which if not detected in time, is sure to maliganise (sic) the polity of the country leading to disastrous consequences. It is termed as a plague which is not only contagious but if not controlled spreads like a fire in a jungle. Its virus is compared with HIV leading to AIDS, being incurable. It has also been termed as royal thievery. The sociopolitical system exposed to such a dreaded communicable disease is likely to crumble under its own weight. Corruption is opposed to democracy and social order, being not only anti-people, but aimed and targeted against them. It affects the economy and destroys the cultural heritage. Unless nipped in the bud at the earliest, it is likely to cause turbulence - shaking of the socio-economic-political system in an otherwise healthy, wealthy, effective and vibrating society.” 17. Corruption is opposed to democracy and social order, being not only anti-people, but aimed and targeted against them. It affects the economy and destroys the cultural heritage. Unless nipped in the bud at the earliest, it is likely to cause turbulence - shaking of the socio-economic-political system in an otherwise healthy, wealthy, effective and vibrating society.” 17. In the case of Sambhu Dayal Nagar (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has come down heavily on the issue of corruption by public servants. For ready reference paragraph 32 is extracted herein-below: “32. It is difficult to accept the prayer of the respondent that a lenient view be taken in this case. The corruption by public servants has become a gigantic problem. It has spread everywhere. No facet of public activity has been left unaffected by the stink of corruption. It has deep and pervasive impact on the functioning of the entire country. Large-scale corruption retards the nation-building activities and everyone has to suffer on that count. As has been aptly observed in Swatantar Singh v. State of Haryana corruption is corroding, like cancerous lymph nodes, the vital veins of the body politics, social fabric of efficiency in the public service and demoralising the honest officers. The efficiency in public service would improve only when the public servant devotes his sincere attention and does the duty diligently, truthfully, honestly and devotes himself assiduously to the performance of the duties of his post. The reputation of corrupt would gather thick and unchaseable clouds around the conduct of the officer and gain notoriety much faster than the smoke.” 18. In the case of Dipak Subhaschandra Mehta (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down a caveat that in case of involvement of economic offence of high magnitude, grant of bail has to be supported by reasons. 19. In the case of Ash Mohammad (supra), while balancing individual liberty with public order, it has been held that individual liberty cannot be accentuated with such an extent or alleviate to such high pedestal which would bring in anarchy or disorder in the society. 20. In the case of Niranjan Hemchandra (supra), the following observations have been made in paragraph 26: “26. 20. In the case of Niranjan Hemchandra (supra), the following observations have been made in paragraph 26: “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.” 21. In the case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy (supra), 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 deeprooted 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.” 22. In the case of Nimmagadda Prasad (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the views expressed in the case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy regarding economic offences. 23. In the case of Subramaniam Swamy (supra), a similar observation has been made in paragraph 75 which is extracted herein-below: “75. In the case of Nimmagadda Prasad (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the views expressed in the case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy regarding economic offences. 23. In the case of Subramaniam Swamy (supra), a similar observation has been made in paragraph 75 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.” 24. In the case of Amit Kumar (supra), 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. 25. The learned Standing Counsel, CBI accordingly prays for rejection of the bail petition. 26. The rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court has been carefully examined. After hearing the parties, the factors in favour and against the petitioner may be culled down as follows: 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 petitioner is the main culprit behind the offence involving bribe which was continuing for a long period of time. Petitioner has claimed not to have connection with Niraj Kumar. Magnitude of the offence. Completion of investigation by filing of Charge-Sheet. Nature of the allegations wherein the petitioner is the main culprit behind the offence involving bribe which was continuing for a long period of time. Petitioner has claimed not to have connection with Niraj Kumar. Investigation reveals that Niraj Kumar is an employee of the petitioner. Further, Petitioner is not cooperating with the investigation/prosecution. Petitioner has claimed to have no connection with M/s Sunshine. Investigation has revealed that M/s Sunshine and M/s Sunshine Devices Private Limited of which the petitioner is a Director are sister concerns. Petitioner’s right under Article 21 of the Constitution is violated. The offence involved is a socio-economic offence which has the propensity to destroy the society. Individual rights are to be balanced with the facts and circumstances. One co-accused has been released on bail. Case of each accused has to be examined on the facts and circumstances pertaining to him. Petitioner has roots in the Society. Petitioner is a businessman against whom there are very serious allegations of corruption and hails from another State. 27. After considering the pros and cons as indicated above and taking into account the guidelines laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court mainly in the cases of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy (supra) as reiterated in Nimmagadda Prasad (supra) and also the cases of Niranjan Hemchandra (supra) and Subramaniam Swamy (supra) this Court is of the view that the present petition cannot succeed. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is rejected. 28. Records produced by Shri Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, CBI are returned back.