IMPORTANT POINT
Bail is a rule and jail is an exception; courts must consider the nature of the allegations and the risk of tampering with evidence when deciding on bail applications.

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. 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 Ra