Samit Gopal, J.

1. Heard Sri Manish Gupta and Sri Shiv Sagar Singh, learned counsels for the applicants and Sri Gyan Prakash, learned Senior Advocate / Deputy Solicitor General assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the C.B.I. and perused the records.

2. The matters are connected together as they arise out of the same case crime no. and are of co-accused in the same. Common argument has been done by learned counsel for the applicants in all the three anticipatory bail applications and thus the matter is being decided by a common order.

3. The three anticipatory bail applications U/S 438 Cr.P.C. have been filed by the applicants- P. K. Dixit, Surendra Kumar Gupta and Nizamuddin with the same following prayer:-

"It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant interim protection from arrest to the Applicant FIR bearing no. RC/DST/2015/A/0004 dated 30.07.2015 u/s 120-B IPC r/w 409, 420, 466, 467, 469, 471 IPC & Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act, 1988 Police Station STF, CBI New Delhi till the pendency of the instant anticipatory bail application and release the Applicant on anticipatory bail in FIR bearing no. RC/DST/2015/A/0004 dated 30.07.2015 u/s 120-B IPC r/w 409, 420, 466, 467, 469, 471 IPC & Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act, 1988 Police Station STF, CBI New Delhi."

4. At the outset, learned counsel for the C.B.I. raised a preliminary objection regarding the applicant approaching this Court directly and not approaching the court below at the first instance. He has placed paragraph 5 of his short-counter affidavit dated 12.10.2022 as his preliminary objection for the same.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants states that the present petition had been filed on 21.09.2021. and raising the said objection now is not in the interest of justice and in the fitness of things.

6. This Court ignoring the said preliminary objection proceeds to hear the petition on its merit.

7. A first information report was lodged on 13.01.2012 against Yadav Singh & others as Case Crime No. 371 of 2012, under Sections 120-B read with Section 409, 420, 466, 467, 469, 471 I.P.C., Sections 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at Police Station- Sector 39, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. for the alleged corrupt practices of the executive engineer working therein between 14.12.2011 and 23.12.2011 while executing engineering work in which agreement bonds of Rs. 954.38 crores were executed by Engineering Department of Noida. The investigation concluded and the State police submitted its closure report which was accepted by the District & Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar on 27.11.2014.

8. Thereafter a Division Bench of the Lucknow Bench of this Court passed an order on 16.07.2015 in Misc. Bench No. 12396 of 2014 (Dr. Nutan Thakur vs. State of U.P. and others) directing the C.B.I. to conduct investigation in all the allegations of corruption and amassing of unaccounted money by Yadav Singh, the then Chief Engineer, Noida / Greater Noida and Yamuna Expressway Authority and other persons in regards to the transactions relating to the same.

9. The C.B.I. took up the case and lodged a first information report as Case No. RC/DST/2015/A/0004/CBI/STF/DLI of 2015, Police Station S.T.F., New Delhi on 30.07.2015. The investigation was handed over to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., S.T.F., Delhi.

10. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that after lodging of the first information report a first charge-sheet bearing No. 02/16 dated 15.03.2016 was filed by the C.B.I. in the case of first information report dated 30.07.2015 in which the applicants were not named. The said charge-sheet was filed before the trial court and trial is going on before the concerned trial court. Subsequently a supplementary charge-sheet bearing No. 06/2017 dated 31.05.2017 was filed by the C.B.I. in which also the applicants are not named. The same has also reached the trial court. The C.B.I. then filed a supplementary charge-sheet No. 5 of 2021 dated 06.10.2021 in which the applicants were not arrayed as accused in the same also. The same has also reached the trial court. It is argued that subsequently the C.B.I. has again registered a first information report bearing No. RC/DST/2018/A/0004 dated 17.01.2018 u/s 120-B IPC r/w 13 (2) & 13 (1) (b) & 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act, 1988 Police Station STF / CBI / New Delhi in which the C.B.I. has filed three charge-sheets bearing No. 4 of 2020, 5 of 2020 and 6 of 2020 in which the applicants are not named. Now in pursuance of a letter dated 17.06.2022 issued by the C.B.I. sanction has been sought for prosecution of the applicants from the CEO Noida. The copy of the said letter has been placed before the Court which is annexed as Annexure-4 to the affidavit. While placing paragraph 17 of the affidavit learned counsel has argued that now the Investigating Officer has telephonically called the applicants without any notice under Cr.P.C. in the first information report dated 30.07.2015 and as such they apprehend arrest. The applicant- P. K. Dixit is working as Accounts Officer whereas the applicants- Surendra Kumar Gupta and Nizamuddin are working as Project Engineer (E&M-I) Division and Assistant Project Engineer (E&M-I) Division respectively in Noida. Further learned counsel has placed a supplementary affidavit dated 10.10.2022 before the Court and while placing Annexure-SA-1 to it has been argued that a Division Bench of this Court has passed an order dated 28.09.2022 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 12437 of 2022 (Javed Ahmed vs. C.B.I. and another) staying the arrest of the petitioner pursuant to the first information report lodged in the year 2015. It is argued that the counter affidavit has been called in the said matter and the same is pending for disposal. The applicants be granted anticipatory bail.

11. Per contra, learned counsel for the C.B.I. vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. It is argued that the matter is such in which although the present first information report was lodged but different charge-sheets are being submitted with regards to different work orders / tenders which were allotted under conspiracy and cheating for which looking to the overall case, the Division Bench of Lucknow of this Court had directed investigation in the matter by C.B.I. and as such after investigation separate charge-sheets are being filed. It is argued that the present petition is vague in as much as there is no disclosure as to what is the case against the applicants and in which offence are they needed. It is argued that the matter is such in which even custodial interrogation may be needed as the matter relates to loss to the State Exchequer in huge amount. It is argued that in none of the paragraphs of the affidavit in support of anticipatory bail application there is any averment as to how the applicant is needed in the present case and what are the allegations in the matter. It is further argued that although the issue of the first information report of the year 2018 is being pleaded but the same has no concern with the present case as the applicants have approached this Court for seeking anticipatory bail in the first information report dated 30.07.2015. The first information report of 2018 is an entirely different first information report with regards to different offences. It is further argued that in the present matter itself the anticipatory bail of coaccused Yadav Singh and Rakesh Kumar Jain have been rejected vide order dated 30.09.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. Nos. 17302 of 2021 and 18216 of 2021. The present anticipatory bail applications deserve to be dismissed.

12. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicants were posted as the Accounts Officer, Project Engineer (E&M-I) Division and Assistant Project Engineer (E&M-I) Division in Noida. They have sought anticipatory bail in the first information report lodged on 30.07.2015. There is no disclosure in the affidavits in support of anticipatory bail applications on what material do the applicants apprehend their arrest. As per Annexure-4 of the affidavit being the letter dated 17.06.2022 by which the C.B.I. has sought sanction for prosecuting the applicants, it is stated therein that there is sufficient material against them. A confidential document has been sent with the said report and even a confidential document being a C.B.I. report has been sent with the said report spelling out the allegations against the applicants. The matter relates to economic offence. The anticipatory bail of co-accused Yadav Singh and Rakesh Kumar Jain have been rejected by this Court vide order dated 30.09.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. Nos. 17302 of 2021 and 18216 of 2021. The consideration of parameters for anticipatory bail in economic offences are all together different than other cases. The Apex Court while deciding a matter of economic offence at the stage of anticipatory bail has in paragraph nos'. 69, 72, 76, 77, 78, 80 and 81 in the case of P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement : (2019) 9 SCC 24 [LQ/SC/2019/1387] has held that power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary power and has to be exercised sparingly, it should be granted only in exceptional cases, nature and gravity of offence has to be seen and refusal to grant anticipatory bail would not amount to denial of the rights conferred upon the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It was further held that cases of economic offences stand as a different class as they affect the economic fabric of the society. It was observed that economic offence is committed with deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless to the consequence to the community. It was held as under:

"69. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but several other purposes. Power under Section 438 CrPC is an extraordinary power and the same has to be exercised sparingly. The privilege of the pre-arrest bail should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred upon the court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation; possibility of the applicant fleeing justice and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Grant of anticipatory bail to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence and hence, the court must be circumspect while exercising such power for grant of anticipatory bail. Anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of rule and it has to be granted only when the court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extraordinary remedy.

72. We are conscious of the fact that the legislative intent behind the introduction of Section 438 CrPC is to safeguard the individual's personal liberty and to protect him from the possibility of being humiliated and from being subjected to unnecessary police custody. However, the court must also keep in view that a criminal offence is not just an offence against an individual, rather the larger societal interest is at stake. Therefore, a delicate balance is required to be established between the two rights--safeguarding the personal liberty of an individual and the societal interest. It cannot be said that refusal to grant anticipatory bail would amount to denial of the rights conferred upon the appellant under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

76. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra [Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 [LQ/SC/2010/1322] : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 514] [LQ/SC/2010/1322] , the Supreme Court laid down the factors and parameters to be considered while dealing with anticipatory bail. It was held that the nature and the gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made and that the court must evaluate the available material against the accused very carefully. It was also held that the court should also consider whether the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her.

77. After referring to Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre [Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 [LQ/SC/2010/1322] : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 514] [LQ/SC/2010/1322] and other judgments and observing that anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances, in Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar [Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar, (2012) 4 SCC 379 [LQ/SC/2012/281] : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 468] [LQ/SC/2012/281] , the Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 386, para 19).

"19. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be satisfied and further while granting such relief, the court must record the reasons therefor. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty. (See D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokaran [D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokaran, (2007) 4 SCC 434 [LQ/SC/2007/236] : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 345], State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain [State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain, (2008) 1 SCC 213 [LQ/SC/2007/1236] : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 176] and Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal [Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal, (2008) 13 SCC 305 [LQ/SC/2008/2031] : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 1] .)"

78. Power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. being an extraordinary remedy, has to be exercised sparingly; more so, in cases of economic offences. Economic offences stand as a different class as they affect the economic fabric of the society. In Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain [Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain, (1998) 2 SCC 105 [LQ/SC/1998/26 ;] ">(1998) 2 SCC 105 [LQ/SC/1998/26 ;] [LQ/SC/1998/26 ;] : 1998 SCC (Cri) 510] [LQ/SC/1998/26 ;] ">1998 SCC (Cri) 510] [LQ/SC/1998/26 ;] [LQ/SC/1998/26 ;] , it was held that in economic offences, the accused is not entitled to anticipatory bail.

80. Observing that economic offence is committed with deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless to the consequence to the community, in State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal [State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal, (1987) 2 SCC 364 [LQ/SC/1987/328] : 1987 SCC (Cri) 364], it was held as under : (SCC p. 371, para 5).

"5. ... The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even-handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and national interest."

81. Observing that economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with different approach in the matter of bail, in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI [Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439 [LQ/SC/2013/568] : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 552] [LQ/SC/2013/568] , the Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 449, paras 34-35).

"34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.

35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations."

(emphasis supplied)"

13. In view of the facts as stated above and the law on the subject as laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case, this Court does not find any good ground to entertain the present anticipatory bail applications.

14. In view of the same, the anticipatory bail applications are rejected.