Bail granted despite ongoing investigation requires cooperation with authorities and prohibition on witness tampering.

ORDER :

1. This bail application has been filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking regular bail and the petitioner is the 1^st accused in Crime No. VC 20 of 2025 of the VACB, Ernakulam, where he alleged to have committed offences punishable under Section 7 (a) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, and under Section 61 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. Perused the relevant materials available.

3. In this matter, the allegation of the prosecution is that, the first accused, who is the Superintendent at the Kochi Corporation, Edappally Zonal Office, and the second accused, who is the Revenue Inspector at the same office, together misused their official positions the intention to obtain unlawful financial gain to them. The specific case is that, on 06.05.2025, Smt.Darsha had submitted an online application (No. TXPT-00555009-2025) at the Edappally Zonal Office for the transfer of ownership of her house. However, without taking any action on the said application, the first and second accused conspired to demand illegal gratification from her and thereby deliberately delayed the processing of the application. When Smt.Darsha's lawyer (the complainant) personally visited the Kochi Corporation Edappally Zonal Office on 13.10.2025 to enquire about the status of the application, the second accused demanded Rs.2,000/- and the first accused demanded Rs.5,000/- as illegal gratification for effecting change of ownership. They also instructed that the money be brought to the Edappally Zonal Office on 15.10.2025. Thereafter, as part of trap, the accused demanded and accepted bribe and on receiving the amount of bribe, both of them were arrested and bribe money was recovered. It is on this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of the above said offences, by the accused.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the petitioner is innocent and the bail application moved before the Special Court was dismissed as per Annexure-A2 order dated 29.10.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.378/2025. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted further that, no money was recovered from the possession of the petitioner and the same was recovered from the possession of the 2^nd accused. The learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed regular bail to the petitioner, by pointing out custody of the petitioner from 16.10.2025 onwards and also the progress of investigation. He pointed out further that the petitioner/1^st accused is ready to abide any condition imposed by this Court as a pre-requisite for granting bail to him.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application by pointing out the seriousness of the offences alleged against the petitioner and also pointed out the increase in corruption cases in the present scenario. Though, the learned Public Prosecutor conceded that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, she pointed out that there is chance for influencing the witnesses and tampering the evidence, in the event of release of the petitioner on bail.

6. On perusal of the report of the Investigating Officer along with the materials available, the offences alleged by the prosecution at the instance of the 1^st accused has been made out, prima facie. There are materials to show that the petitioner demanded bribe from the lawyer of Smt.Darsha to issue ownership certificate and also Rs.1,35,500/- was recovered from his house on search by the Investigating Officer. However, the fact remains is that, the petitioner has been in custody from 16.10.2025 and the investigation has achieved m