Rathnakala, J.Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused and the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-C.B.I.

2. The respondent-C.B.I. registered FIR in R.C. No. 23(A)/2016 against named seven accused and others in respect of the offence punishable under Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 406, 409, 468, 471 and 477-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner is arraigned as A6.

3. The pith of the allegation is, during a raid by the Income Tax Authorities, the petitioner was found in possession of new currency notes to the tune of Rs. 46 lakhs. At the same time, raid conducted by the Income Tax Authorities at the residence of A3, A4 and A5 also revealed possession of excess new currency notes in their possession. A1 and A2 are the Managers of the Banks who allegedly facilitated other accused persons with the new currency notes much against the norms and guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India, they were to follow and were obliged to disburse the amount through A.T.M. to the Account holders.

4. As of now, the position is, A3 who had filed a petition under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 to quash the complaint against him, on the assurance given by the respondent not to arrest him in view of his exigency to arrange for the marriage of his daughter, is out of apprehension of arrest.

5. A5 is released by the Trial Court on medical grounds. A1 and A2 are not arrested.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Contractor and the course of his business requires his personal involvement in the management and administration wherein 3000 employees are employed. He is ready to surrender his passport, and undertake not to leave Bengaluru City until filing of charge-sheet and he would appear before the respondent - I.O. as and when called for and submit himself for investigation.

7. As against this, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent would submit that the petitioner cannot claim parity with the co-accused who are on bail or who are not yet arrested. The nature of the allegation requires intrinsic investigation and the investigation is in progress. The petitioner being an influential person, there is every chance of his prevailing over the witnesses and they may also require his further custodial interrogation. Though he is in custody for the last one month, he was given to police custody only for 5 days by the Court below. The documents which were required by the Income Tax Department were seized during the raid by them itself. During the police custody of the petitioner, in the present case, no incriminating material is seized from his possession by the respondent-police. The petitioner was in police custody only for 5 days. The I.O. is entitled for the custody of the accused for 14 days and they have not fully exhausted the said remedy.

8. In the facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that there is no impediment to allow the petition subject to conditions.

In the given circumstance, the petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be enlarged on bail in R.C. No. 23(A)/2016 by the respondent-C.B.I. on 2-2-2017 on executing a self-bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- with one local surety for the like-sum subject to the following conditions :

(i) He shall surrender his passport to the concerned Court and shall not leave the vicinity of Bengaluru City without the permission of the concerned Court.

(ii) He shall not attempt to prevail upon or contact any prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly.

(iii) He shall appear before the respondent-I.O. as and when called upon and co-operate during further course of investigation.

dated 26-4-2017

ORDER ON I.A. No. 2 OF 2017

Heard on I.A. No. 2 of 2017.

9. The petitioner is seeking relaxation of Condition No. 1 imposed by this Court while allowing the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

10. Condition No. 1 which is sought to be relaxed reads thus:

"He shall surrender his passport to the concerned Court and shall not leave the vicinity of Bengaluru City without the permission of the concerned Court."

11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being a business person, it necessitates for him due to business exigencies to travel outside Bengaluru and for each and every travel it is cumbersome for him to get prior permission from the concerned Court. As he has already surrendered his passport to the Court, the question of his leaving the country will not arise.

12. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent has filed his objections opposing the application. He submits that, the petitioner had already taken such a permission from the Court and had travelled outside the vicinity of Bengaluru and since there is no absolute ban on his travel outside, there is no merit in the application.

13. On considering the plea of the accused about his exigencies to travel outside the City of Bengaluru for business purposes frequently, ends of justice require some modification to the first condition. The petitioner shall inform to the concerned Court in advance whenever it necessitates for him to leave the vicinity of Bengaluru, the details of his travel, the destination, period of stay outside Bengaluru, his contact number and address to the Court, with copy to the prosecution. With this observation, I.A. No. 2 of 2017 stands disposed off.