ORAL ORDER
1. The learned Special Judge, CBI Special Court, Ahmedabad, while deciding the anticipatory bail has observed in Paragraphs 6.3 and 6.4 as under:
"6.3. Moreover, maximum punishment provided for the offence U/s. 7 of PC Act and other offences is up to 07 years imprisonment. Therefore, offence squarely covered U/s. 35 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita. In the absence of exceptional circumstances as provided under Section 35(1)(b) (ii), the accused cannot be arrested.Therefore, there is no apprehension of arrest to the applicant So, protection of bail in anticipation of the arrest without cause should not be given.
"6.4.Here, in this case, Learned Senior P.P. and I.O submitted that investigation is still at the very initial stage and even Notice U/s. 35 BNSS is not yet issued to these accused and detailed investigation and custodial interrogation may also be required. Moreover, CBI has also submitted that in this case investigation is underway, and presently it is not intended to arrest the accused without warrant. So, also protection of anticipatory bail should not be granted.
Page 1 of 2
Considering the allegation against this main accused, it is a complex, multi-layered attempt to launder bribe money and hide the trail of corruption. So, protection of anticipatory bail can not be given.
2. The learned Trial Court has also taken into consideration the fact that the CBI is bound to adhere to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation. From the record, it transpires that the Court of the Special Judge (CBI), Ahmedabad has taken into consideration the submissions made by the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. At this stage, learned advocate for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw the present application.
5. Permission as prayed for is granted. In view of the above facts, the respondent is bound to adhere to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation. The present application stands disposed of as withdrawn.
6. It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case.
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J)
ADITYA SINGH/64
Page 2 of 2