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 affidavit-in-rejoinder is also filed on behalf of the applicant.

3. Heard Mr.R. S. Sanjanwala, learned senior advocate for Mr.Bhadrish Raju, learned advocate for the applicant, Ms.Chetana Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 – State, Mr.R. C. Kodekar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondent No.2 and Mr.Devang Vyas, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the Income Tax Department.

4. Mr.Sanjanwala, learned senior advocate for Mr.Raju, 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 and even not named in the FIR and he is not connected with the allegations of the offence, despite of the same the Investigating Authority has given notice under Section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code to the applicant informing him to appear before the authority. 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 the applicant is suffering from heart disease and for the same he is taking treatment and he is also suffering from high blood pressure and diabetes and, therefore, considering the medical ailments, the applicant may be released on bail. Mr.Sanjanwala, learned senior advocate for the applicant further 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 has interrogated over three days and cooperated with the investigation and handed over every materials and mobile phone also. In support of his submissions, Mr.Sanjanwala, learned senior advocate has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sadashiv Mahadeo Yavaluje and Gajanan Shripathrao Salokhe Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (1990) 1 SCC 299 more particularly paragraph no.11 and the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Mannan Mohd Yusuf Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2019 SCC Online Bom 824 : (2019) 2 AIR Bom R (Cri) 991.

5. Mr.Kodekar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondent – CBI has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail. He submits that there is connection between the main accused and this accused, which fact has been established and Rs.30,00,000/- has been deposited by the complainant through his employee in the account of Vardhman operating with Dhara Angadia is belonging to the accused, which was utilized by them and the said amount nabbed by the ACB Police in presence of the independent witnesses, which fact is also established. He submits that in the form of ora