IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the principles for granting bail require careful consideration of the nature of the allegations and the potential for interference with the investigation.

ORDER :

V.R.K. Krupa Sagar, J.

1. The criminal petition No.5547 of 2024 under sections 480 and 483 of the BNSS is filed by the petitioners/A4 and A5 to 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. The criminal petition No.5384 of 2024 under sections 480 and 483 of the BNSS is filed by the petitioner/A6 to 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 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3. Heard arguments of Sri O. Manohar Reddy, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Varun Byreddy, the learned counsel for petitioner in Crl.P.No.5384 of 2024 and Sri Jupudi VK Yagnadutt, the learned standing counsel for Central Government appearing for CBI. Counter is filed on behalf of respondent/CBI.

4. Heard arguments of Sri T. Sreedhar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Dr. S. Rajani, the learned counsel for petitioners in Crl.P.No.5547 of 2024 and Sri Jupudi VK Yagnadutt, the learned standing counsel for Central Government appearing on behalf of CBI. Counter is filed on behalf of respondent/CBI.

5. Perused the record.

6. A4/ Sri M. Balaji and A5/Sri D. Lakshmi Pathi Raju earlier filed Crl.M.P.No.232 of 2024 seeking regular bail. By an order dated 01.08.2024, the learned Special Judge for CBI Cases, Kurnool declined to grant the bail and dismissed the petition.

7. A6/ Sri N. Rahmathulla earlier filed Crl.M.P.No.230 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.

8. In the above referred circumstances, these petitioners filed these criminal petitions before this court seeking regular bail.

9. 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. All these petitioners were 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. Thereafter, the Learned Special Judge has been extending their judicial custody.

10. Before adverting the facts relevant for these petitions, 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

11. 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.

12. It is also re