JUDGMENT : 1. This criminal petition under sections 480 and 483 of the BNSS is filed by the petitioner/A7 and 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. Heard arguments of Sri Purna Chandra Reddy, the learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Dilip Jaya Ram appearing on behalf of Jupudi VK Yagnadutt, the learned standing counsel for Central Government appearing on behalf of CBI. Counter is filed on behalf of respondent/CBI. 3. Perused the record. 4. A7/ Sri Kuppam Ramesh Reddy earlier filed Crl.M.P.No.233 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. 5. In the above referred circumstances, this petitioner filed this criminal petition before this court seeking regular bail. 6. 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. Petitioner was 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. Subsequently, an application for extension of Judicial Custody of the accused was made on 19.07.2024 and the learned Special Judge had extended the Judicial Custody of the accused till 02.08.2024 and it was further extended from time to time. 7. Before adverting the facts relevant for this petition, 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. 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 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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. 11. 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. 12. A7/petitioner herein is a private person and the grounds urged in this criminal petition 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 • Allegations levelled against the petitioner are so vague and completely baseless in nature • Petitioner is respectful citizen with permanent residence 13. Counter affidavit’s submissions: • The allegations against the petitioner 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 petitioner 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. 14. During hearing, the learned standing counsel for Central Government appearing for CBI further submits that the role of this petitioner is not confined to single transaction and they are involved in several such transactions and these are all organized activities and releasing him on bail at this stage may hamper the investigation and prays for dismissal of this petition. 15. The facts alleged against the petitioner are as below: As per the source information, A7/ Sri K. Ramesh Reddy along with M. Bhima Shankar and other contractors have conspired to deliver illegal gratification in the form of jewellery worth of Rs. 25,00,000/- to Vineeth Singh for favors shown in issuance of various tenders to them. 15. The facts alleged against the petitioner are as below: As per the source information, A7/ Sri K. Ramesh Reddy along with M. Bhima Shankar and other contractors have conspired to deliver illegal gratification in the form of jewellery worth of Rs. 25,00,000/- to Vineeth Singh for favors shown in issuance of various tenders to them. Source also informed that the petitioner has provided his personal vehicle for Vineeth Singh, DRM and his family members during their visit to Tirupati. Petitioner has delivered part payment of illegal gratification in the form of gold jewellery worth of Rs. 20,00,000 to Vineeth Singh and remaining was still pending. Challa Suresh Naidu told M. Bhima Sankar to hold the delivery of bribe amounts to U. Akki Reddy as he was likely to be transferred, and then on, the petitioner told M. Bhima Shankar to deliver at least Rs 10 lakhs to U. Akki Reddy as he would create hindrance in their work. Kunda Pradeep Babu informed the petitioner that nobody had come to meet him regarding Dharmavaram Gate works and demanded bribe for completion of pending work, as such, that the petitioner assured him that he would deliver the bribe to him. Kunda Pradeep Babu instructed BLV Prasad to prepare list of all contractors whose bribe was pending. The petitioner assured BLV Prasad about amount. Subsequently Ram Subba Reddy with of Rahamathulla tried for delivery of bribe amount to Kunda Pradeep Babu. 16. At para No.5 of the counter affidavit filed in Crl.P.No.5467 of 2024, it is stated that a trap was laid and bribe amount of Rs. 10 lakh and Rs 50,000 was recovered from conscious possession of Senior DFM Kunda Pradeep Babu, D. Laxmi Pathi Raju, Account Assistant and M.Balaji, OS respectively. The bribe givers and other accused involved in this case including the petitione At para No.10 of the counter affidavit, it is mentioned that bribe amount of 10 lakhs paid by the petitioner was recovered during the trap proceedings conducted by the Investigating Agency. Thus the petitioner/accused is not innocent at all and has rightly been made accused in the instant case. The role of the petitioner is clearly established in the commission of offence. At para No.11, it is mentioned that the allegation against petitioner are very specific and not vague. Thus the petitioner/accused is not innocent at all and has rightly been made accused in the instant case. The role of the petitioner is clearly established in the commission of offence. At para No.11, it is mentioned that the allegation against petitioner are very specific and not vague. He was actively involved in delivery of bribe to a senior public servant at Guntakal in the form of cash as well as jewellery for getting undue benefit in tender related work. There is sufficient evidence to show his involvement in paying bribe to public servant. The accused was arrested by CBI after laying a trap and recovery of bribe amount from the public servant which disclosed his complicity in the commission of offence. 17. 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. 18. 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 repeating the crime or tampering with the evidence are required to be guarded and the same has to be done by prescribing appropriate conditions. 19. In the earlier occasions, bail has been granted to some of the accused in the same offence. In this result, the petition is allowed in the following terms: 1. Petitioner/A7 shall be enlarged on bail on 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. Petitioner/A7 shall mark his attendance on every Friday between 11.00 AM and 2.00 PM at CBI Office, Hyderabad. 3. He must always make himself available for investigation. 4. He shall not make any attempt either to influence the witnesses or to tamper with the evidence.