In this petition filed under Sections 437 and 439 Cr.P.C, the petitioner/AO craves for bail.

2. FIR No.05/RCA-CR-1/2018 dt.16.03.2018 was registered against AO by the Inspector of Police, ACB, City Range-I, Hyderabad for the offence under Section 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short PC Act, 1988) on the allegation that the AO, who is working as Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I, Nampally, Hyderabad, has acquired assets worth Rs.1,96,44,000/- disproportionate to his known source of legal income.

3. The investigation is reported to be pending.

4. The AO was arrested on 17.03.2018 and his bail application in Crl.M.P.No.215/2018 was dismissed by the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad on 28.03.2018.

5. It is an economic offence. With man’s pursuit for materialistic pleasures increased, the economic offences started waxing. The height of the concern for the society in recent period unfortunately is that the law protectors, the guardians of public rights are being frequently involved in economic and white collar offences. This is one of such classic examples.

6. In every bail application including the offences involving economic frauds and white collar crimes, the Courts encounter a crucial issue of individual liberty guaranteed by the Constitution under Article 21 on one hand and societal interest to bring the culprit to book and see that the fair trial and impartial justice are rendered. These two aspects being distinct poles, Courts are required to strike a judicious balance between the two conflicting interests. That is where, we are now.

7. Bail law on economic and white collar offences is well delineated and no more res integra. Echoing the concern for economic offences, which are more dangerous and having far reaching impact on society than bodily offences, Hon’ble Apex Court and several High Courts have held that in dealing with such bail applications, Courts are required to analyze and evaluate certain relevant factors cautiously.

(i) In State of Gujarat vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal and another, (1987) 2 SCC 364, the Apex Court observed thus:

“Para 5: xx xx. Ends of justice are not satisfied only when the accused in a criminal case is acquitted. The community acting through the State and the Public Prosecutor is also entitled to justice. The cause of the community deserves equal treatment at the hands of the court in the discharge of its judicial functions. The community or the State is not a persona-non-grata whose cause may be treated with disdain. The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even-handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and national interest.”

(ii) In Nimmagadda Prasad v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2013) 7 SCC 466, the Supreme Court voiced:

“Para 23: Unfortunately, in the last few years, the country has been seeing an alarming rise in white-collar crimes, which has affected the fibre of the country's economic structure. Incontrovertibly, economic offences have serious repercussions on the development of the country as a whole.

Para 25: Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence having deep-rooted conspiracies and in