ORDER :

1. These two petitions are preferred against the orders passed by the LXXXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, rejecting the applications filed by the petitioners under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C.

2. The undisputed facts are that during course of investigation into the FIR registered against one Sri. D.K. Shivakumar under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of PC Act, 1988, respondent-CBI police conducted a search in the company premises of M/s. Wellworth Software Private Limited (petitioner in Crl.P.No.687/2021) and in the residence of one Sri. Sachin Narayan (petitioner in Crl.P.No.693/2021) and cash of Rs.47,98,000/-and another bundle of cash of Rs.5,48,000/-were seized and the same was produced before the learned Special Judge.

3. M/s. Wellworth Software Private Limited as well as the aforesaid Sri. Sachin Narayan moved separate applications under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. claiming interim custody of the seized cash. The contention of M/s. Wellworth Software Private Limited was that the cash of Rs.47,98,000/-was seized from its office premises as indicated in the seizure memo and the contention of Sri. Sachin Narayan was that a sum of Rs.5,48,000/-was seized from the Almirah kept in his residential house.

4. The contention of both the petitioners is that the company has been carrying on the business of multi system operators and during the course of business, it collected cash from various local cable operators. The said amount was to be credited to the bank and thereafter to be remitted to the broadcasters, but before it could be deposited into the bank, the same was seized by the police and therefore the petitioners being the rightful owners of the seized cash, are entitled for interim release. Further, the petitioners contended that the seized amount has no connection with the matter under investigation by the police and therefore, the retention of the said property is not necessary either for the purpose of investigation or for the purpose of eventual trial.

5. The applications were opposed by the learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondent/CBI, inter-alia contending that Sri. Sachin Narayan who has been running the aforesaid company, is a business partner of the wife of Sri. D.K. Shivakumar who is accused in Crime No.RC10(A)/2020. The investigation into the source of her funds is in progress. Under the said circumstances, the petitioners are not entitled for the release of the funds. Further, referring to the bank extracts relating the company run by the petitioners, the learned SPP contends that in all other cases the amounts collected by the local cable operators were directly deposited into the bank account of the petitioners and therefore the explanation offered by the petitioners that the seized amount was collected from the local cable operators in cash cannot be believed.

6. I have heard Sri. Sandeep S. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. P. Prasanna Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondent-CBI.

7. By drawing my attention to the voluminous documents produced by the petitioners, the learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that as per the business practice of the Company, the amount was regularly collected from the various cable operators and a receipt was issued in acknowledgement thereof as reflected in Annexure receipts at Pages 200 to 218 and page 36 and further referring to the bank extract, he would submit that regularly the amount was credited to the bank account of the company and thereafter the same was passed on to the broadcasters as reflected in page 161 (bank statement) which disclose that an amount ranging from Rs.25 Lakhs, Rs.15 Lakhs and Rs.15 Lakhs have been credited during the month of August 2020 favouring Star India Limited, BBC Global, Indiacast Media Distribution, Sony Pictures etc.,

8. Through the genuineness of the documents produced by the petitioners are disputed by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, yet, at