ORDER

1. This Special Leave Petition is directed against the final judgment and order passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad (as it was then called) in Criminal Petition No. 3632 of 2013, dated 20.06.2013. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has dismissed the application for grant of bail filed by the accused-petitioner herein. The accused Petitioner herein was arrayed as an accused in RC 17(A)/2009-CBi-HYD, dated 07.12.2009 as amended on 05.09.2011, for the offence under Sections 120-B, 420, 379, 409, 468, 411, 427 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "the Indian Penal Code"), Section 2 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and Rule 21 read with Rule 4(1), 4(1)(A) and 23 of the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. Consequent to the same, the accused was arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short, "CBI") on 05.09.2011.

2. Since his arrest, the accused-petitioner has approached the Trial Court for the grant of regular bail under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code") on a number of occasions. The said request of the accused-petitioner has been rejected on the grounds that the investigation by CBI was underway and further, that grant of bail to the accused-petitioner may impede fair and uninfluenced investigation.

3. Aggrieved by rejection of bail application(s) by the Trial Court, the accused-petitioner had approached the High Court for grant of regular bail under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code.

4. The High Court, in the impugned judgment and order, has considered the gravity of allegations levelled against the accused-petitioner, his influential status and the crucial stage of investigation in the case, where the CBI has indicated a reasonable apprehension that the accused-petitioner is likely to influence the investigation if enlarged on bail and therefore, concluded that it would not be appropriate to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail at the said stage of investigation proceedings.

5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the accused-petitioner is before us in this petition.

6. We have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties to the lis and perused the judgment and order passed by the High Court alongwith other documents on record.

7. Shri. Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the CBI submits that since the CBI has already filed the charge-sheet and also the supplementary charge-sheet against the Petitioner, further investigation of the Petitioner may not be required for the present. Therefore, on instructions, he states that the CBI does not have any objection for grant of regular bail to the Petitioner, by imposing certain conditions, which are stated in the affidavit filed on its behalf on 15.12.2014.

8. Since the investigating agency has no objection for grant of bail to the Petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to grant bail to the Petitioner, subject to the following conditions:

"a) He shall surrender his passport, if not already surrendered, to the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad. If he has already surrendered his passport before the learned Principal Special Judge, that fact should also be supported by an affidavit.

b) He shall not leave the country without the leave of the learned Principal Special Judge.

c) He shall not visit the Districts of Bellary in Karnataka and District of Ananthapuram and Cuddapah in Andhra Pradesh.

d) He shall cooperate with the Court in the smooth process of trial and its early conclusion.

e) He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts to the court or to tamper with the evidence.

f) He shall remain present before the learned Principal Special Judge on the dates fixed for hearing of the case without fail. If he requires to remain