THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.7008 OF 2009 ORDER : The petitioner herein apprehends arrest in Case No.R.C.No.15(A)/2009 of C.B.I, Visakhapatnam, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The accusation made against the petitioner is that he demanded Rs.5,000/- as illegal gratification from the defacto-complainant through one M.Pratap Kumar, R.P.F. constable. Heard Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent-state. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in the report presented by Addanki Vijay @ Vasu, nothing is stated by him against the petitioner and therefore, whatever amount seized from the possession of M.Pratap Kumar, R.P.F. Constable cannot be connected to the petitioner. The learned senior counsel strenuously contended that the defacto-complainant does not speak of any demand of money by the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner deserves to be granted anticipatory bail. Learned senior counsel refers the report of Sri Addanki Vijay, submitted before the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I, Visakhapatnam. Learned Special Public Prosecutor opposed the application that the conversation between Sri Pratap Kumar, from whom an amount of Rs.5,000/- has been seized, and the present petitioner clearly establishes the amount is collected from Vijay as illegal gratification on his behalf. I have gone through the post-trap panchanama dated 10.08.2009. The relevant portion of the panchanama reads as hereunder : “Thereafter, in order to verify the version of Shri M.Pratap Kumar that he demanded and accepted the illegal gratification of Rs.5,000/- at the behest of Shri D.Srinivas Rao, Inspector, RPF Post, Chirala, Shri Vijay, the complainant and Shri Pratap Kumar, Constable were asked to contact Shri D.Srinivas Rao, Inspector on his cell phone No.9701373718, in the presence of both the independent witnesses. The conversation among them was recorded in a digital voice recorder. During the conversation Shri Vijay, the complainant informed Shri D.Srinivas Rao, Inspector, RPF outpost, Chirala that he had handed over the amount of Rs.5,000/- to Shri Pratap Kumar, Constable. Subsequently, when Shri Pratap Kumar, Constable, spoke to D.Srinivas Inspector, he corroborated the version of Shri Vijay, complainant. When Shri Pratap Kumar, constable enquired about the disposal of the bribe amount of Rs.5,000/- he asked Shri Pratap Kumar to keep the money with himself, which he would collect himself later. When Shri Pratap Kumar, expressed his inability to wait till his arrival he asked him to put the money in a cover and hand it over to the SI at the RPF outpost, Bapatla. The said recorded conversation was transferred to two fresh CDs (“Sony CD/R 700 MB”) in the presence of both the independent witnesses. The two CDs were marked as CD-III and both the independent witnesses and Shri Rama Rao, PI signed on the said CDs. Then these CDs were kept in two separate envelops and the same were duly sealed. Both the independent witnesses signed on these envelopes”. The post-trap panchanama, prima facie, suggest the involvement of the petitioner in collecting illegal gratification from the complainant. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. _______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J September 14, 2009 KSH