The legal principle established is that the grant of bail must be secured within the bounds of the law and in compliance with the conditions laid down by the Court, balancing numerous factors that guide the exercise of discretionary power to grant bail on a case-by-case basis.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. - The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner/CBI seeking setting aside of the orders dated 06.01.2022 and 07.01.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge (PC act), CBI-15, Rouse avenue Courts, New Delhi in the case arising out of RC No.218/2021/a0007 registered under Sections 7/8/9/10 of the Prevention of Corruption act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) read with Section 120B IPC at P.S. CBI/aC-III, Delhi.

2. Insofar as prayer clause (a) is concerned, the same was not pressed having become infructuous.

3. The facts of the case, as noted by the learned Special Judge, are as under:-

'3. (I) ...on 30.12.2021 on the basis of 'source information' that a-1 akil ahmad, being Regional Officer of National Highways authority of India (in short 'NHaI') was in the habit of demanding and accepting illegal gratification from NHaI contractors for clearing their pending bills and for issuing Provisional Commercial Operations Date (in short 'PCOD') for completed projects.

(ii) On 30.12.2021 a-1 had demanded illegal gratification from a-2 Retnakaran Sajilal, General Manger of M/s Dilip Buildcon Private Limited, having its registered office at Plot No.5, Chuna Bhatti, Kolar Road, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh-462016 (hereinafter referred to as 'DBL') with respect to project under 'Bangalore-Chennai Expressway Package 1 & 2', being undertaken by DBL in Karnataka. a-4/applicant being Executive Director of DBL had approved payment of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Only) for being paid to a-1 towards illegal gratification. after approval by a-4, said illegal gratification of Rs.20.00 lakhs was delivered at the Delhi residence of a-8 anuj Gupta for being finally paid to a-1. During trap proceedings, said amount of Rs.20.00 lakhs was recovered from Delhi on 30.12.2020. Further, cash amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs was also recovered from the premises of a-1.

4. Thereafter simultaneous raids were conducted at the premises of a-1 akil ahmad, a-2 Retnakaran Sajilal, a-3 Mahim Pratap Singh Tomar, applicant/a-4 Devendra Jain as well as a-5 Uma Soni. all the aforesaid accused persons except a-5 were also arrested on 31.12.2021 and the material available at their Offices was taken into possession by various CBI teams. On 30.12.2021, the applicant was there in Cochin alongwith his family members where he is stated to have gone for his treatment of naturopathy. He was picked up alongwith one of his relatives from his hotel room and taken to the office of CBI at Katari Kadavu, Kullar Post, Cochin, during the intervening night of 30-31/12/2021, where purportedly he was given notice u/s 41a Cr.PC to attend the CBI office at 9:00 aM on 31.12.2021 and where ultimately he was arrested at 11:00 aM. He was produced before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernaculam from where he was brought to Delhi CBI Office on transit remand. He was produced before the Ld. Special Judge, who remanded him to police custody and from time to time his police custody has been extended till today. The two mobile phones of applicant have already been taken into possession by CBI. Similarly, the search and seizure was effected on the houses of other accused persons and the relevant material therefrom has been taken possession of and brought to Delhi.'

4. Mr. Nikhil Goel, learned SPP for the petitioner/CBI, contended that the impugned order suffers from the vice of having being passed for extraneous reasons. It was submitted that the learned Judge failed to take into consideration the prima facie involvement of the respondent, the severity of the offence, the likelihood of the respondent influencing the witnesses in the event of his release on bail, and the effect of such release on the investigation of the case, which is pending.

Learned SPP further submitted that as per the narration of facts in the FIR, the respondent, being Executive Director and CEO of M/s Dilip Buildcon Private Limited (hereinafter, referr