IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2008 / 12TH ASHADHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4259 of 2008() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.RC12(A)/2008/CBI/KERALA) PETITIONER --------------------------- ARJUN THIMMAIAH, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.B.B.MOHAN, RESIDING AT NO.1 R.T.NAGAR, 80FT. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 032. BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- C.B.I., REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRY,SC, C.B.I. FOR R1 THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------------- Bail Appl.No. 4259 of 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2008. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. According to prosecution, the first accused, who is a public servant, accepted Rs.90,000/- from the de facto complainant as bribe and he was caught read-handed, on the complaint made by de facto complainant. The 2nd accused was also present there at that time. He is a Peon attached to petitioner's company. It is alleged that the 2nd accused had come there to collect the money to be taken to the petitioner. On a search conducted in the house of the first accused, Rs.2,80,000/- was recovered. A crime is registered under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the first accused. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a resident of Bangalore. It is further submitted that three officers representing the C.B.I. came to his house alleging [B.A.No.4250/08] 2 petitioner's involvement in illegal gratification. The petitioner is not a public servant. He is innocent of the allegations made. He is working as Manager in a private company in Bangalore. Therefore, petitioner seeks anticipatory bail, anticipating his arrest in connection with non-bailable offence. 4. This petition is opposed. It is submitted by learned Standing Counsel for C.B.I. that the petitioner is not made an accused so far though petitioner's involvement in the offence is strongly suspected and it appears that there is conspiracy between the petitioner, the first accused and 2nd accused. The second accused was used for procuring money on behalf of the petitioner and hence petitioner's custodial interrogation is absolutely essential to reveal his complicity in the offence, it is submitted. If anticipatory bail is granted, according to respondent, the investigation will be adversely affected. 5. On hearing both sides, it is clear that petitioner is not so far made an accused. If the petitioner is innocent as stated now, his innocence can be exposed during interrogation and in such event, there may not any arrest. In such circumstances, petitioner not being an accused, there not being any apprehension of arrest anticipatory bail cannot be granted to the [B.A.No.4250/08] 3 petitioner. However, it is made clear that, if the petitioner is required for interrogation, notice shall be issued to him affording reasonable time for his appearance before the officer concerned, in accordance with law. With this observation, this petition is disposed of. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.