M.P.Dixit contacted Surojit Samanta of MIs. S.K.Samanta & Company to v. unidentified person. For this purpose, accused M.P.Dixit obtained mobile

80 Lakhs against the demanded amount to a place near A.P.J. School, Saket in the evening of 25.5.2010. The raiding party was waiting for the passing of mOney. Accused V.N.Singh, after collecting the money, managed to escape but accused Sanjay Singh was apprehended at the spot. Accused V.N.Singh was arrested in the evening of 26.5.2010 and cash of Rs.80 Lakhs was recovered. Accused M.P.Dixit and accused Vijender Singh were arrested at Bilaspur and accused S.K.Samanta was arrested at New Delhi. During interrogation, accused Vijender Singh disclosed that the 4 petitioners Ram Avtar Aggarwal and Bajrang Aggarwal, partners of M/s. Maruti Clean Coal Benefications (P) Limited, Bilaspur had asked him to arrange their meeting with M.P.Dixit and in the said meeting, they offered to pay a bribe of Rs. 1 Crore to M.RDixit for helping in allotment of a railroad siding to them for loading of coal. Accused Sanjay Singh disclosed that he is an employee of M/s. Bombay Talkies and is the Manager of the said firm. Sh. Navin Sharma and Sh. Vinod BahI, employees of the petitioners Bajrang Aggarwal and Ram Avtar Aggarwal had given him Rs.80 Lakhs with the direction to deliver said money to one Vikram. Learned Sh. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Advocate appearing for the C/)/" petitioner Ram Avtar Aggarwal and Sh. Simon Benjamin, Advocate appearing for the petitioner Bajrang Aggarwal submit that the role assigned to the above referred accused persons is that they, as per the disclosure of Vijender Singh, approached M.P.Dixit through Vijender Singh for getting help in allotment of rail-road siding to them for loading of coal and for that purpose, they have offered to pay a sum of Z 1 Crore as illegal gratification to M.P.Dixit, and they arranged for Z 80 lakhs to be paid to M.P.Dixit through one Vikram. It is submitted that the case of the prosecution is based only on the disclosure statement of the co-accused, which is inadmissible in evidence. Learned counsels further submit that the petitioners were granted interim protection by this court. They are enjoying interim protection for the last about one year and there is no allegation against them of their either tampering with the evidence or interfering in the investigation. It is further submitted that during the period of this one year, the petitioners have joined investigation on almost twenty occasions. Learned Ms. Sonia Mathur, Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/CBI has strongly opposed the anticipatory bail applications. She submits that the allegations against the petitioners are of serious nature. They have refused to give their voice samples but their voices in tape conversation are identified by independent witnesses, showing their complicity in the offence. She further submits that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary to locate the source of Z 80 lakhs, which were seized during raid. She further submits that all the three persons (1 accused of in this case are claiming that they have lost their mobile phones with a view to obstruct the investigation. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. In the instant case, pursuant to the raid, the case property has been seized. Other co-accused namely M.P.Dixit, Vikram Singh, S.K.Samanta, Sanjay Singh and V.N.Singh have already been released on bail. The petitioners were also granted interim protection and during that period, they have joined the investigation, therefore, I find no justification for request of the espondent for custodial interrogation. Considering the overall facts and circumstances and applying the principle of parity, anticipatory bail applications are allowed. It is ordered that the petitioners, in the event of, their arrest, be released on bail on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Z 50,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/concerned court. This, however, is subject to the condition that the petitioners shall join the investigation as and when required and they shall not leave the country without the permission of the court. Applications stand disposed of. Order dasti

(AJIT BHARIHOKE)

JUDGE AUGUST 10, 2011 a kb