ORDER : J. Sreenivas Rao, J. This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short, ‘ BNSS ’) by the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.4, seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No.RC0352025A0004 of ACB Hyderabad Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 (for short, ‘ IPC ’) and Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. Heard Sri Ch. Ravinder, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri T. Srujan Kumar Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI, appearing on behalf of the respondent. 3. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that on 23.06. 2023, a master excel list was distributed to Circle 12(1), Circle 1(1), Ward 1(1), Ward 4(1), and Ward 12(1), instructing the Assessing Officers to issue notices to assessees/tax payers who requested significant refunds in their Income Tax Returns (ITRs). Subsequently, the Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-I, Hyderabad, promptly halted this initiative, instructing the respective wards and circles to cease the issuance of notices and delete the excel list. It is further case of the prosecution is that accused Nos. 1 and 2, who hold positions as Senior Tax Assistants, have disregarded the aforementioned order by Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-I, Hyderabad and illegally retained a copy of the Excel list with the intent to exploit the sensitive information related to the assessee. Accused No. 1 summoned individuals from the master list to the office, while accused No. 2 aided accused No.1 by providing the Permanent Account Numbers (PAN) of the assessees in Ward 4(1), which is the largest Ward, and transferred them to Ward 12(1) or Circle 12(1). Subsequently, both the accused sent emails from their respective branches' official accounts and instructed the assessees to submit necessary documentation in support of their refund claims. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 conspired with other Income Tax Officers, i.e., accused Nos. 3 to 5 and one private individual, i.e., accused No. 6, who is a Chartered Accountant, to channel bribes from the assessees to the accounts of the accused Income Tax Officers under the pretense of imposing substantial penalties. Accused Nos. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 conspired with other Income Tax Officers, i.e., accused Nos. 3 to 5 and one private individual, i.e., accused No. 6, who is a Chartered Accountant, to channel bribes from the assessees to the accounts of the accused Income Tax Officers under the pretense of imposing substantial penalties. Accused Nos. 1 to 5 directly contacted the taxpayers/assessees on their mobile phones and instructed them to respond to the emails regarding the refund issue; failure to do so resulted in threats of significant penalties. Under the guise of imposing penalties on refunds sought by the assessees, they solicited bribes from them. The accused cleverly used the term penalty to lead the assessees to believe that they were making a payment to the Government rather than a bribe. Subsequently, after agreeing on penalty payments with the assessees, accused Nos. 1 to 5 provided the mobile number of accused No. 6 to the taxpayers/assessees. Accused No. 6 would attend the calls from them under the pretense of rectifying the ITRs as instructed by the Income Tax Officers and collected bribe payments from them. Therefore, the Anti-Corruption Bureau (herein referred to as 'ACB') has initiated the present case against the petitioner and the other accused for the above-mentioned offences. 4.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and he was falsely implicated in the present crime. He further submitted that major allegations are levelled against accused Nos. 1, 2, and 6, and they are the prime accused, who are involved in the entire episode and there are no specific allegations levelled against the petitioner to attract the ingredients of Section 420 of IPC and Sections 7 and 7A of the Act. He further submitted that the petitioner came to know that the complaint was registered based on an e-mail received from one of the assessee through the E-filing portal, in which the allegations are levelled only against accused Nos. 1, 2, and 6. Unfortunately, the petitioner was implicated in the present crime based on the presumption related to the alleged offence. 4.2 He further submitted that the petitioner joined in service in the year 1996 and he got an unblemished record of service, and so far, not even a ‘censure’ was imposed against him nor any complaint in nature by any of the assessee, and his work was appreciated by his superiors. 4.2 He further submitted that the petitioner joined in service in the year 1996 and he got an unblemished record of service, and so far, not even a ‘censure’ was imposed against him nor any complaint in nature by any of the assessee, and his work was appreciated by his superiors. He further submitted that the Investigating Officer had issued notice under Section 179 of BNSS on 21.11.2024, and under the same, the petitioner appeared before him and furnished the information. He further submitted that pursuant to the notice dated 08.04.2025 issued under Section 35(3) of BNSS , the petitioner appeared before the Investigating Officer on 16.04.2025 and furnished the information and the Investigating Officer has seized his mobile phone and posted to 28.04.2025 for enquiry and the petitioner is ready and willing to appear before the Investigating Officer and furnish the information, which he seeks and also whenever his presence is required before the Investigating Officer, he is ready and willing to appear and to cooperate with the investigation. 4.3 He further submitted that the petitioner is heart patient and undergone operation in the year 2007 and he is taking treatment regularly in Apollo Hospital, Hyderguda and also he is suffering with high blood pressure and Diabetics, due to which he has to take eight tablets per day and apart from he also requires regular assistance. If the petitioner is arrested, he will suffer irreparable loss, and his health will be affected significantly. He also submitted that the petitioner is governed by CCI regulations and if he is arrested and kept behind bars for more than 48 hours, he will be suspended as per Rule 10 of the CCI Rules. He further submitted that all the prime accused were already released on bail and the entire investigation is completed except filing of the charge sheet. The petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and will abide by the conditions, which are going to be imposed by this Court. 5.1 Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the petitioner has committed a grave offence under the provisions of Section 420 of IPC and Sections 7 and 7A of the Act. 5.1 Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the petitioner has committed a grave offence under the provisions of Section 420 of IPC and Sections 7 and 7A of the Act. The master excel list was circulated by the Income Tax Department on 23.06.2023 to Circle 12(1), Circle 1(1), Ward 1(1), Ward 4(1) and Ward 12 (1) directing the Assessing Officers to send notices to the assessees/tax prayers, who claimed high refund in Income Tax Returns (ITRs). Thereafter, the then Additional CIT Range-I, Hyderabad, has directed the respective Wards and Circles to stop sending notices and delete the Excel list from the official website. However, accused Nos. 1 and 2 defied the said orders and unauthorizedly retained the copy of the said Excel list with an intention to misuse the sensitive information pertaining to the said taxpayers. 5.2 He further submitted that accused No.1 called the individuals from the master list to the office, whereas accused No.2 got the PAN numbers of the assesses in Ward No.4(1), the largest Ward, transferred to Ward No.12(1) or Circle 12(1). Subsequently, accused Nos. 1 and 2 drafted e-mails from the official e-mail account of the respective branches and sent it to the assessees, directing them to submit necessary documents in support of their refund claimed. He also submitted that accused Nos.1 and 2 conspired with Income Tax Officers i.e., accused No.3, petitioner/accused No.4 and accused No.5 and a private person i.e., accused No.6, Chartered Accountant to route the bribe from the said assessees to the accounts of accused Nos.3 to 6 under the guise of levying hefty penalty. 5.3 He further submitted that the petitioner and other accused threatened the assessees if not responded immediately. In the guise of levying a penalty on refund claimed by the assessees, the petitioner and other accused demanded bribes from them. Accordingly, the assessees transferred the amounts with the account of accused No.6, and in turn, accused No.6 has transferred various amounts to the accounts of the petitioner’s son, namely K.Dheeraj Kumar, and his henchmen Chitram Balaraju on various dates. 5.4 He further submitted that the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that accused Nos. 1, 2, and 6 were arrested and they were released on bail was denied. According to him, only accused No.1 was arrested. 5.4 He further submitted that the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that accused Nos. 1, 2, and 6 were arrested and they were released on bail was denied. According to him, only accused No.1 was arrested. He also submitted that on 03.04.2025 Income Tax Officer had issued a notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS , directing the petitioner to appear before him on 08.04.2025. However, the petitioner did not appear before him. Thereafter, another notice was issued directing the petitioner to appear on 16.04.2025. Accordingly, he appeared. Later on 16.04.2025, another notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS was issued directing the petitioner to appear before him on 28.04.2025 and the investigation is under threshold. 5.5 He further submitted that the petitioner is a part of the conspiracy and played a pivotal role in the commission of the offence, and the investigation is under progress. If the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, he will interfere with the investigation and influence the witnesses. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to grant anticipatory bail at this stage. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment in Devinder Kumar Bansal vs. The State of Punjab , MANU/SC/0309/2025 . 6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it is revealed that based on the complaint lodged by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (ACB & CBI), Hyderabad, crime No.RC035202580004 of 2025 was registered for the offence under Section 420 of IPC and Sections 7 and 7A of the Act as amended in 2018 against the petitioner/accused No.4 and other accused. The specific allegation against the petitioner and others is that on 23.06.2023 Income Tax Department circulated a master excel list to Circle 12(1), Circle 1(1), Ward 1(1), Ward 4(1) and Ward 12(1) directing Assessing Officers to send the notices to the assessees, who are claiming high refund in ITRs. Later on, the Additional CIT, Range-I, Hyderabad directed the respective Wards and Circles to stop sending notices to the assessees and delete the Excel list from the website. However, accused Nos.1 and 2 have retained the copy of the said Excel list with them intending to misuse the sensitive information about the taxpayers. Later on, the Additional CIT, Range-I, Hyderabad directed the respective Wards and Circles to stop sending notices to the assessees and delete the Excel list from the website. However, accused Nos.1 and 2 have retained the copy of the said Excel list with them intending to misuse the sensitive information about the taxpayers. Accused No.1 called the assessees from the list and accused No.2 obtained the PAN numbers of the assessees in respect of Ward No.4(1) and transferred to Ward No.12(1) and they have sent e-mails to the assessees from the official e-mail accounts of the respective branches directing them to submit necessary documents in support of the refund claimed by them. 7. The complaint further reveals that accused Nos.1 and 2 conspired with other Income Tax Officers i.e., accused Nos.3 to 5 and one private person i.e. accused No.6, who is a Chartered Accountant to route the bribe from the said assessees to the accounts of the accused Income Tax Officers in the guise of levying hefty penalty. Accused Nos. 1 to 5, who are the Income Tax Officers, used to call the taxpayers/assessees directly to their mobile phones and demanded they reply to the e-mail they received regarding the refund issue. If they failed to do so, they were threatened with hefty penalties. In the guise of levying a penalty on refunds claimed by the assessees, they demanded bribes from them. 8. The complaint further reveals that accused No.6 has received the bribe money from the assessees into his bank account, and in turn, accused No.6 transferred the amounts into the account of the son of the petitioner, namely K.Dheeraj Kumar, and his henchmen Chitram Balaraju on various dates. 9. The Investigating Officer filed counter, wherein it is specifically stated that on 03.04.2025 the Investigating Officer has issued notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS directing the petitioner to appear in the Office of the CBI, ACB, Hyderabad on 08.04.2025, however, the petitioner did not appear in the CBI office for investigation. He further submitted that according to the notice dated 08.04.2025 issued under Section 35(3) of BNSS , the petitioner appeared before the Investigating Officer on 16.04.2025 and furnished the information, and the Investigating Officer has seized the mobile phone of the petitioner. According to the averments made in the counter affidavit, the investigation is at the initial stage, and accused No.1 alone has been arrested. 10. According to the averments made in the counter affidavit, the investigation is at the initial stage, and accused No.1 alone has been arrested. 10. It is already stated supra, that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner, who conspired along with the other accused and demanded bribe from the assessees under the guise of levying hefty penalty on refund claimed by them by misusing the sensitive information in the master excel list, which was circulated by the Income Tax Department on 23.06.2023. Despite issuance of directions by the competent authority to delete the master Excel list from the website and the petitioner has also received the bribe amount into the accounts of his son and his henchmen. 11. In Devinder Kumar Bansal (supra) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court reads as follows: “21. The parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence like corruption are required to be satisfied. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the Court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has been falsely enroped in the crime or the allegations are politically motivated or are frivolous. So far as the case at hand is concerned, it cannot be said that any exceptional circumstances have been made out by the petitioner accused for grant of anticipatory bail and there is no frivolity in the prosecution. 23 . The presumption of innocence, by itself, cannot be the sole consideration for grant of anticipatory bail. The presumption of innocence is one of the considerations, which the court should keep in mind while considering the plea for anticipatory bail. The salutary rule is to balance the cause of the accused and the cause of public justice. Over solicitous homage to the accused's liberty can, sometimes, defeat the cause of public justice. 24 . If liberty is to be denied to an accused to ensure corruption free society, then the courts should not hesitate in denying such liberty. Where overwhelming considerations in the nature aforesaid require denial of anticipatory bail, it has to be denied. It is altogether a different thing to say that once the investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed, the court may consider to grant regular bail to a public servant - accused of indulging in corruption.” 12. Where overwhelming considerations in the nature aforesaid require denial of anticipatory bail, it has to be denied. It is altogether a different thing to say that once the investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed, the court may consider to grant regular bail to a public servant - accused of indulging in corruption.” 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the above-mentioned judgment has dismissed the anticipatory bail to the petitioner, on the ground that the facts of the case did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances in a corruption case. Notably, the Court referred to Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988, explaining that even the attempt or solicitation of a bribe falls within the ambit of the statutory prohibition. Similarly, the Court noted that Section 13 of the P.C. Act punishes “criminal misconduct” by habitual acceptance or solicitation of prohibited gratification. In light of the seriousness of the allegations, the anticipatory bail is typically unwarranted in corruption matters, unless it can be demonstrated that the accusations are frivolous, politically motivated, or manifestly false. The significance of this judgment is to safeguard the integrity of public office, which remains paramount. 13. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity of the offence, and also the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Devinder Kumar Bansal (supra), this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, especially when the investigation is at the initial stage. 14. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this petition stand closed.