ORDER :

1. By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant - original accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in case of his arrest in connection with the FIR registered as C.R No. RC0292022A0011 of 2022 before CBI/ACB/Gandhinagar Police Station, District: Gandhinagar for the offences under Section 7 etc of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

2. An affidavit-in-reply is filed on behalf of the respondent – CBI and also filed additional affidavit-in-reply.

3. Heard Mr.J. M. Panchal, learned senior advocate for Mr.Shahil Sarwani, learned advocate for the applicant, Mr.Chintan Dave, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 – State, Mr.R. C. Kodekar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondent No.2 – CBI, Mr.N. D. Nanavati, learned senior advocate with Mr.Mrugen Purohit, learned advocate for the original complainant and Mr.Devang Vyas, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the Income Tax Department.

4. Mr.Panchal, learned senior advocate for Mr.Sarwani, learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and is not connected with any incident or event constituting the offence as alleged in the FIR. He submits that the applicant has not played any role in the alleged offence. He submits that there is no prima facie case made out against the applicant and even none of the ingredients is satisfied so as to connect the applicant with the offence as alleged in the FIR. He also submits that two main ingredients of the Prevention of Corruption Act being demand and acceptance are not fulfilled in the present case and there is no acceptance or demand made by the applicant and the alleged amount was recovered by the Investigating Agency from the Angadia firm which is not even remotely connected to the applicant. He submits that though the evidence as to the alleged demand and acceptance of the undue advantage are in possession of the Investigating Agency, there is no scope for the applicant to tamper with any evidence. He submits that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary and besides the applicant will be available during the course of investigation and will not flee away from the justice. He submits that in view of the above, the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail by imposing suitable conditions. Learned senior advocate for the applicant on instructions states that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions including imposition of conditions with regard to powers of Investigating Agency to file an application before the competent Court for his remand. He further submits that upon filing of such application by the Investigating Agency, the right of applicant to oppose such application on merits may be kept open. He has submitted that the applicant neither demanded any amount nor accepted and no such recorded conversation is admissible in evidence as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and hence, there is no proof of demand of any undue advantage and such demand is sine qua non for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He submits that the Investigating Authority had published advertisement and/or notice in the media, social media and pasted “wanted” poster with the applicant’s name, photo and designation at various public places and near the houses of the applicant’s relatives. He submits that the applicant neither have any antecedents nor habitual offender nor declared as proclaimed offender nor committed any crime. He submits that the application may be allowed and the applicant may be released on bail.

5. Mr.Kodekar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondent – CBI has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail. He submits that the accused demanded an undue advantage of Rs.30,00,000/- from the complainant and some conversation to that effect was recorded on 03.10.2022. H