SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.

1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner for various prayers. Initially, it was filed for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that the transit remand granted to the CBI for the custody of the present petitioner was illegal. Subsequently, the petition was amended and two other prayers were added. By the amended prayer (aa), the petitioner prayed for setting aside the order dated 03/05/2017 granting transit remand of the petitioner and the prayer (aaa) was for issuance of a writ of mandamus or other directions, for directing continuation of the proceedings in respect of FIR No. RC 8(A)/2017-CBI, ACB, Vishakhapatanam, only before the Special Judge for CBI cases at Mumbai.

2. The brief facts borne out from the petition and its annexure are as follows :-

An FIR was lodged at Vishakhapatanam bearing number RC 08(A)/2017 of CBI on 01/05/2017 under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The said FIR listed 8 accused. The first accused was the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal - 30, Mumbai. The entire accusation in the FIR revolves around the said accused demanding and obtaining illegal gratification. He is the only public servant amongst the 8 accused who were named in the FIR, and since he was a public servant, the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were applied. The FIR was lodged on the basis of reliable information received in the office of the Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, Vishakhapatanam. The said accused no.1 was deciding income tax matters related to M/s. Balaji Trust (named as accused no.2 in the FIR). The said trust was represented by its trustee ESSAR Investments Limited, Mumbai. The said matter was handled on behalf of the said M/s. Balaji Trust by the CA firm M/s. G. K. Choksi, Ahmedabad, through one Shreyas Parikh (named as accused no.3 in the FIR). This trust, through the said CA, had agreed to pay a hefty bribe running into crores, as illegal gratification to the accused no.1, on his demand for a favourable order in the matter.

3. The present petitioner was employed by the aforementioned ESSAR group and he was monitoring the progress of the matter of paying the illegal gratification to the accused no.1. The petitioner was in touch with the accused no.3 Shreyas Parikh and the accused no.4 Gautam Choksi, both representing M/s. G. K. Choksi at Mumbai. The favourable order in the present matter was passed by the accused no.1, which was uploaded on 21/04/2017. The FIR further mentioned that, at the time of lodging of the FIR, the accused no.1 was on leave and was at Vishakhapatanam, Andhra Pradesh. The said accused no.1 was in close association with one Suresh Jain (named as accused no.7 in the FIR). He was in the bullion and real estate business at Vishakhapatanam. The accused no.1 had contacted the accused no. 2 Shreyas Parikh through the accused no.7 Suresh Jain on 25/04/2017. On behalf of accused no.1, Suresh Jain (accused no.7) contacted Gautam Choksi (accused no.4) and enquired about the delivery of the agreed payment of illegal gratification.

4. On 27/04/2017, one Vipin Bajpai (named as accused no.6 in the FIR), was directed by the petitioner to deliver an installment of illegal gratification to Shreyas Parikh (accused no.3). Thereafter, one Manish Jain (named accused no.8 in the FIR), on instructions of accused no.7 Suresh Jain, took the delivery of the amount of illegal gratification.

5. On 28/04/2017, Manish Jain collected another installment of the illegal gratification from Vipin Bajpai and confirmed about the same to Suresh Jain.

6. On 01/05/2017, the accused no.1 asked the accused no.7 Suresh Jain to deliver part of the amount of the illegal gratification received by the said Suresh Jain on his behalf. The said delivery of the amount was to take place at the residence of the accused no.1 on 02/05/2017. Based on this information, the aforementioned FIR came to be lodged.

7. Pursuant to the said information, a trap was lai