ORDER : V.R.K. Krupa Sagar, J. 1. The criminal petition No.5547 of 2024 under sections 480 and 483 of the BNSS is filed by the petitioners/A4 and A5 to grant regular bail in connection with FIR No.Rc.2182024A0013 of 2024 of CBI AC-III, New Delhi for the offences punishable under Sections 61(2) of BNS read with sections 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The criminal petition No.5384 of 2024 under sections 480 and 483 of the BNSS is filed by the petitioner/A6 to grant regular bail in connection with FIR No.Rc.2182024A0013 of 2024 of CBI AC-III, New Delhi for the offences punishable under Sections 61(2) of BNS read with sections 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. Heard arguments of Sri O. Manohar Reddy, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Varun Byreddy, the learned counsel for petitioner in Crl.P.No.5384 of 2024 and Sri Jupudi VK Yagnadutt, the learned standing counsel for Central Government appearing for CBI. Counter is filed on behalf of respondent/CBI. 4. Heard arguments of Sri T. Sreedhar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Dr. S. Rajani, the learned counsel for petitioners in Crl.P.No.5547 of 2024 and Sri Jupudi VK Yagnadutt, the learned standing counsel for Central Government appearing on behalf of CBI. Counter is filed on behalf of respondent/CBI. 5. Perused the record. 6. A4/ Sri M. Balaji and A5/Sri D. Lakshmi Pathi Raju earlier filed Crl.M.P.No.232 of 2024 seeking regular bail. By an order dated 01.08.2024, the learned Special Judge for CBI Cases, Kurnool declined to grant the bail and dismissed the petition. 7. A6/ Sri N. Rahmathulla earlier filed Crl.M.P.No.230 of 2024 seeking regular bail. By an order dated 29.07.2024, the learned Special Judge for CBI Cases, Kurnool declined to grant the bail and dismissed the petition. 8. In the above referred circumstances, these petitioners filed these criminal petitions before this court seeking regular bail. 9. The offences alleged in this case are under Sections 61(2) of BNS read with sections 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. All the offences are punishable with imprisonment which may extend up to 7 years. All these petitioners were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 06.07.2024. CBI sought police custody of them. 9. The offences alleged in this case are under Sections 61(2) of BNS read with sections 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. All the offences are punishable with imprisonment which may extend up to 7 years. All these petitioners were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 06.07.2024. CBI sought police custody of them. The learned Special Judge by an order dated 15.07.2024 granted police custody from 16.07.2024 to 18.07.2024. Necessary interrogation took place and thereafter, they were sent back to judicial custody on 18.07.2024. Thereafter, the Learned Special Judge has been extending their judicial custody. 10. Before adverting the facts relevant for these petitions, one of the rulings cited by Sri Jupudi V K Yagnadutt, the learned standing counsel for Central Government is relevant to be noticed in Prashanta Kumar Sarkar V. Ashish Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 . Their Lordships stated the principles to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail in the following terms : i. Whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; ii. Nature and gravity of the accusation; iii. Severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; iv. Danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; v. Character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; vi. Likelihood of the offence being repeated; vii. Reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; viii. Danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail 11. One may also notice the ruling of their Lordships in Masroor V. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2009) 14 SCC 286 . Their Lordships held that at the stage of granting bail an elaborate examination of evidence and detailed reasons touching the merit of the case should be avoided since any such endeavour may prejudice the accused. However, there is a need to indicate in such order reasons for prima facie concluding why a particular decision is taken with reference to bail. 12. It is also relevant to notice Manish Sisodia V. Directorate of Enforcement, (2024) SCC Online SC 1920 and Jalaluddin Khan V. Union of India, (2024) SCC Online SC 1945. However, there is a need to indicate in such order reasons for prima facie concluding why a particular decision is taken with reference to bail. 12. It is also relevant to notice Manish Sisodia V. Directorate of Enforcement, (2024) SCC Online SC 1920 and Jalaluddin Khan V. Union of India, (2024) SCC Online SC 1945. In these rulings, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had found the need to reemphasize the approach to be adopted in bail hearings and held that the courts are to consider such prayers in accordance with the law and may bear in their mind that bail is a rule and jail is an exception. In all those cases where once a case is made out for the grant of bail, the same is to be granted. During bail hearings, it shall be borne in mind that giving reasons for grant or non-grant of bail is markedly different from discussing merits or demerits of the evidence. 13. Broad Contours of the case: The essence of the prosecution relates to dishonest and corrupt activities in South Central Railway at Guntakal Division. The allegations are that there is a cartel of contractors and there is a set of dishonest public servants. Tenders were awarded to those persons on paying and receiving bribes. Inflated bills were passed for dishonest reasons. Bills for executed works were passed selectively for dishonest and corrupt reasons. 14. Based on source information, there was Swift action on part of officers of the CBI and FIR was registered. The information received therein and the investigation that took place soon thereafter disclosed criminal acts as against several individuals which include public servants, private persons, commercial organizations. 15. A4 and A5 (petitioners in Crl.P.No.5547 of 2024) are public servants. A4 is Office Superintendent in the Engineering Section. A5 is Account Assistant, Gati Shakti in the office of the Chief Project Manager. A6 (petitioner in Crl.P.No.5384 of 2024) is a private person. 16. 15. A4 and A5 (petitioners in Crl.P.No.5547 of 2024) are public servants. A4 is Office Superintendent in the Engineering Section. A5 is Account Assistant, Gati Shakti in the office of the Chief Project Manager. A6 (petitioner in Crl.P.No.5384 of 2024) is a private person. 16. Grounds urged in Crl.P.No.5384 of 2024 for A6 are That the petitioner is innocent and had no criminal antecedents and the acts alleged against him are incorrect even as per record As against the petitioner, there is no material to indicate how he was benefited by his alleged participation in the criminal activity The only material made available against him is the confession which is inadmissible for consideration Petitioner has been suffering from serious diabetes requiring constant medical attention On 01.07.2024 for the petitioner’s son there was engagement and the marriage of his son is scheduled in the near future Petitioner is respectful citizen with permanent residence 17. Grounds urged in Crl.P.No.5547 of 2024 for A4 and A5 are Petitioners are innocents and against them, there are no allegations showing that they ever demanded bribe Petitioners have no role either in awarding contracts or for payment of bills to the contractors and in fact, the entire mechanism is regulated by e-system and there is no scope for any human interference. No recoveries are made from them. 18. Counter affidavit’s submissions : The allegations against the petitioners are serious in nature as they indicate delivery of illegal gratification to public servants. A thorough and uninterrupted investigation is the need of the hour and granting bail at this crucial stage could jeopardize the investigation as the petitioners may tamper with the evidence and influence the witnesses. Detailed narration of case facts are given in the counter affidavit and para wise responses are also detailed. 19. During hearing, the learned standing counsel for Central Government appearing for CBI further submits that the role of these petitioners is not confined to single transaction and they are involved in several such transactions and these are all organized activities and releasing them on bail at this stage may hamper the investigation and prays for dismissal of the petitions. 20. The facts alleged against these petitioners are as below : As per the source information, A6/ Sri N.Rahmathulla would be delivering a bribe amount of Rs.10 lakhs to Sri Kunda Pradeep Babu, Sr. 20. The facts alleged against these petitioners are as below : As per the source information, A6/ Sri N.Rahmathulla would be delivering a bribe amount of Rs.10 lakhs to Sri Kunda Pradeep Babu, Sr. DFM and would be delivering a bribe amount of Rs.1 lakh to Sri M. Balaji, the office Superintendent/A4. 21. At para No.14 of the counter affidavit filed in Crl.P.No.5384 of 2024, it is stated that a trap was laid and A6 was caught delivering Rs.10 lakhs as bribe to Sri M. Alexander for Sri Kunda Pradeep Babu, Sr. DFM and Rs.50,000/- to Sri M. Balaji and Rs.50,000/- to Sri Lakshmi Pathi Raju/A5. At para No.15 of the counter affidavit, it is mentioned that apprehension of A6 from the scene of crime was the place where the delivery of bribe money was made by him on behalf of Sri Ram Subba Reddy. At para No.17, it is mentioned that the bribe was delivered for the tender work related to LC.125. The exact relationship between the petitioner/A6 and A10 under whose instructions the bribe was being delivered, is under investigation. At para No. 18, it is mentioned that accused was apprehended on the spot while delivering bribe amount to the public servants. Further, it emerged through material collected that he conspired as per the instruction of the other accused for getting benefit related to tender of LC.125. At para No.20, it is mentioned that the role of the petitioner clearly established as far as conspiracy to deliver the bribe. 22. The above facts mentioned in the counter have to be properly considered based on the material papers of the case record. A6/ Sri N. Rahmathulla was arrested and a detailed annexure containing reasons for arrest were furnished by the CBI and that is made part of this record by the petitioner. In this what is mentioned is – “Sri N. Rahmathulla was intercepted by CBI team and on enquiry, he disclosed that he had paid Rs.10 lakhs to Sri M. Alexander for Sri K. Pradeep Babu, Sr DFM and Rs.50,000/- to Sri M. Balaji, Office Superintendent and Rs.50,000/- to Sri Lakshmi Pathi Raju, Office Assistant, Ghati Shakti Department. On the disclosure of Sri N. Rahmathulla/A6, the bribe amount of Rs.10 lakhs was recovered from the possession of Sri M. Alexander at his House No.7/31-A-5, Bhagya Nagar, Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh. On the disclosure of Sri N. Rahmathulla/A6, the bribe amount of Rs.10 lakhs was recovered from the possession of Sri M. Alexander at his House No.7/31-A-5, Bhagya Nagar, Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh. Further, Sri Lakshmi Pathi Raju was traced by CBI team and on enquiry Sri Lakshmi Pathi Raju disclosed that he had taken Rs.50,000/- from Sri N.Rahmathulla and he had given to his friend Sri Sk. Rahmathulla. Thereafter, Sri Sk. Rahmathulla was called and the amount of Rs.50,000/- was recovered in the presence of witnesses. Thereafter, Sri M. Balaji, Office Superintendent was enquired and on enquiry Sri M. Balaji accepted and disclosed that he had taken Rs.50,000/- from Sri N. Rahmathulla and he had kept at his residence. On his disclosure, Rs.50,000/- has also been recovered from his residence in the presence of witnesses. 23. The above referred material would make the matters very clear. The material collected so far does not indicate any direct involvement of demand and receipt of bribe. Though CBI has been using the word trap, the material referred above would show that the act of giving and taking the bribe money was not witnessed by anyone and none was arrested at that time and nothing was recovered at that time. What all the record now indicates is From A6/ Sri N. Rahmathulla, nothing was recovered and the alleged Rs.10 lakhs is stated to have been recovered from Sri M. Alexander. No material is so far placed to show that it was not meant for Sri M. Alexander but it was meant for Sri K. Pradeep Babu, Sr DFM Nothing was recovered from A5/Sri D. Lakshmi Pathi Raju. It remained an allegation that he received money from A6 and he had passed it to his friend one Mr. Sk. Rahmathulla Nothing on the spot was recovered from A4/Sri M. Balaji and Rs.50,000/- was recovered on search of his house. 24. In the context of above facts and circumstances, considering the progress in investigation and length of detention, this court finds that any continued detention does not seem necessary. Apprehensions of their repeating the crime or tampering with the evidence are required to be guarded and the same has to be done by prescribing appropriate conditions. 25. In the result, both the petitions are allowed in the following terms : 1. Apprehensions of their repeating the crime or tampering with the evidence are required to be guarded and the same has to be done by prescribing appropriate conditions. 25. In the result, both the petitions are allowed in the following terms : 1. Petitioners/A4, A5 and A6 shall be enlarged on bail on each executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Thirty thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge for CBI Cases, Kurnool. 2. A4 and A5 are restrained from taking access to their respective offices and to the office records during the period they are on bail. 3. Petitioners/A4, A5 and A6 shall mark their attendance on every Friday between 11.00 AM and 2.00 PM at CBI Office, Hyderabad. 4. They must always make themselves available for investigation. 5. They shall not make any attempt either to influence the witnesses or to tamper with the evidence.