Sri Kandepu Seeta Rama Krishna Rao

1

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES,

VIJAYAWADA

Present:- Sri K.S.Rama Krishna Rao,

Special Judge for CBI Cases,

Vijayawada.

Wednesday, this the 29th day of April, 2026

Crl.M.P.No.1030/2026

Online Crl.M.P.No.1/2026

in

RC No.5(A)/2026 of CBI, ACB, Vishakhapatnam.

Between:

Banavatu Nagu, S/o. Kesya, 39 years, Bank Manager, R/o. D.No.3-148, Ward-4, A.Konduru Mandalam, Repudi Thanda, Krishna, Andhra Pradesh. … Petitioner/A.1 A N D

The State, S.H.O, CBI, Vishakhapatnam, Rep. By its Public Prosecutor. … Respondent/Complainant.

This petition came on 28.04.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri T. Chaitanya Pradeep, Advocate for the Petitioner/A.1 and Senior Public Prosecutor for respondent/complainant; and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

O R D E R

This petition is filed by the petitioner/A1 under section 480 of

BNSS in RC No.5(A)/2026-CBI, ACB, Vishakhapatnam seeking an order to release him on bail.

2.The brief averments of the petition are that:

a)The petitioner was arrested by the respondent on 18.04.2026 in connection with above crime under section 61(2) of BNS 2 and sections 7, 7A of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and he was produced before this court and he was remanded to judicial custody.

b)As per the case of prosecution, the defacto-complainant gave written complaint alleging that he has been sanctioned overdraft against cash credit limit of Rs.50,00,000/- from Indian Bank,

Narasimharaopeta Branch, Eluru and the Bank Manager/A.1 told him that with reference to observation of the Auditor, his account limit will be reduced from 50 lakhs to 20 lakhs or it will be declared Non-Performing

Asset. When the complainant asked for reasons, the Branch

Manager/A.1 told to pay bribe of Rs.50,000/- @ Rs.1,000/- per lakh to continue smooth running of his account. The Bank Manager further pressurized him and finalized the amount to Rs.30,000/-. The complainant told the Branch Manager/A.1 that he was in Rajastan for some reasons and he would talk once he returned to Eluru.

c)On 16.04.2026 the Branch Manager/A.1 again called the complainant and told to meet him regarding the matter. The complainant is not willing to pay the bribe amount as demanded by

Branch Manager/A.1 and he lodged complaint with CBI for taking necessary legal action. The Inspector of police, CBI, ACB,

Vishakhapatnam conducted discreet verification in the presence of independent witness and submitted the report. Verification revealed that Branch Manager and Bank Official in furtherance of criminal conspiracy pressurized the complainant by saying that the complainant done the diversion of funds of sanctioned CC limit and both of them cited the reference that the sale of stock from his shop was in cash and the same got verified the bank official in person visit to his shop.

d)Both of them further cited the reference of observation by the Auditor to reduce the CC limit of the complainant from Rs.50 lakh to 3

Rs.20 lakh and also they demanded Rs.25,000/- from the complainant by saying that they already paid the said amount to the Bank Auditor for not taking any action on the sanctioned CC limit. The Branch Manager told the complainant to come to Bank after lunch to give the bribe money to one of Bank Employee. Basing on the complaint and verification report, the CBI registered case in RC.5(A) for the alleged offences against the accused. On 18.04.2026 a trap was laid and A.1 to

A.3 were arrested.

e)The petitioner/A.1 was falsely implicated in the present crime and did not commit any offence. The written report for registration of the present crime does not disclose the essential ingredients constituting offences alleged against the petitioner. In the absence of any prima facie material attracting the said provisions, the registration of the crime against the petitioner is arbitrary and unsustainable in law.

f)The petitioner strictly followed rules governed by the Cash

Credit Guidelines and the Reserve Bank of India standards for working capital management. The petitioner in his professional capacity was merely communicating these mandatory regulatory requirements to the complainant to ensure the safeguarding of the account and compliance with official banking procedures. The petitioner never demanded or acquired any money or benefit for his gain from the complainant.

g)In the verification memo the petitioner is relying the findings of the auditor that the account at risk of being declared NPA or having its limit slashed by 60% due to Non-compliance with CC guidelines.

The complainant misinterpreted the petitioner’s efforts to safeguard the account and navigate complex post-closing audit requirements as a personal demand for undue advantage. The essential ingredients of 4

Sec.7 of PC Act are not attracted, as there is no demand for undue advantage for the petitioner’s personal gain and Sec.7A is not applicable as the petitioner did not induce another public servant through corrupt for personal gain. The allegation of Criminal Conspiracy

U/s.61 (2) of BNS is purely presumptive.

h)The primary allegation against the petitioner is built upon an alleged telephonic conversation between the complainant, the bank official (A.2) and the petitioner. It is well settled principle of law that telephonic recordings are considered as weak piece of evidence and are susceptible to tamper or misinterpretation and they cannot by itself form the sole basis in the absence of independent corroboration. The

Hon’ble Supreme Court in several occasions has held that the absence

of a clear demand and acceptance of a bribe directly by the accused, a mere phone conversation especially one that is technically ambiguous is insufficient to justify continued incarceration. As the recovery of the tainted currency was made from a private individual (A.3) and not from the petitioner.

i)The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar V. State of

Bihar and as reinforced in Mihir Rajesh Shah V. State of Maharashtra (2025), arrest in such cases should be the exception, not the rule. The investigating officer failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances or immediate necessity to arrest the petitioner. The arrest was made without communicating specific grounds of the arrest and as such it is void ab initio. It is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Prabir Purkayastha V. State (NCT of Delhi) and Mihir Rajesh

Shah V. State of Maharashtra that reasons for arrest are invariably different from grounds of arrest and cannot be equated with reasons of arrest which are general in nature. The Apex court further held that the 5 constitutional safeguard would be nugatory if the merely permitted to readout grounds of arrest and claim compliance and it is fundamental right not a mere formality.

j)As per the remand report all the documentary evidence was seized from the bank and major part of investigation was completed.

The petitioner was arrested on 18.04.2026 and remanded to judicial custody. The petitioner is married and having school going children.

He is the sole bread winner of his entire family. His family depends on his financial and personal support. The petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case. The petitioner is law abiding citizen. He has permanent place of residence and solvent sureties to ensure his presence during investigation, enquiry and trial. No similar bail petition is pending before any court. Hence, the petitioner/A.1 filed this petition.

3.The brief averments of the counter filed by the respondent/complainant are that

a)The respondent registered the above case against the petitioner and two others under section 61(2) of BNS and Secs.7 and 7A of PC Act. Complainant is running Vituda Auto Agency. He has been sanctioned OCC limit of Rs.50 lakhs from Indian Bank,

Narasimharao Peta Branch, Eluru for soomth running of day to day business. When the defacto-complainant went to Rajasthan on some work, A.1 contacted the complainant and told that the Auditor has come to the Bank and referred some technical glitches in the loan account, due to which the limit of his account will be reduced from Rs.50 Lakhs to Rs.20 Lakhs or otherwise it will be turned to NPA.

b)When the complainant asked for reasons, the A.1 told him that he has to pay bribe of Rs.50,000/- @ Rs.1,000/- per lakh to 6 continue smooth running of his account and A.1 pressurized the complainant and finalized the bribe amount to Rs.30,000/-. On that the complainant told the A.1 that he was in Rajasthan for some reasons and he would talk once he returned to Eluru. On 16.04.2026 the A.1 again called the complainant and told to meet him regarding the matter. The complainant is not willing to pay the bribe amount as demanded by A.1 he lodged complaint with CBI for taking necessary legal action.

c)The Inspector of police, CBI, ACB, Vishakhapatnam conducted discreet verification in the presence of independent witness and submitted the report. During the verification of the complaint on 18.04.2026, the complainant visited the Indian Bank, Narasimharao peta Branch, Eluru and met A.1. The conversation taken place between

A.1, A.2 and complainant has been recorded in memory card through

Digital Voice Recorder. The conversation reveals that A.1 and A.2 demand Rs.25,000/- by reducing it from Rs.30,000/- on the pretext that they had already paid bribe amount of Rs.25,000/- to the Auditor on behalf of complainant. Branch Manager and Bank Official in furtherance of Criminal Conspiracy pressurized the complainant by saying that the complainant done the diversion of funds of sanctioned

CC limit and both of them cited the reference that the sale of stock from his shop was in cash and the same got verified the bank official in person visit to his shop.

d)Both of them further cited the reference of observation by the Auditor to reduce the CC limit of the complainant from Rs.50 lakh to

Rs.20 lakh and also they demanded Rs.25,000/- from the complainant by saying that they already paid the said amount to the Bank Auditor for not taking any action on the sanctioned CC limit. The Branch Manager told the complainant to come to Bank after lunch to give the bribe 7 money to one of Bank Employee. Basing on the complaint and verification report, the CBI registered case in RC.5(A) for the alleged offences against the accused. On 18.04.2026 a trap was laid and A.1 to

A.3 were arrested.

e)The complainant arrested the accused on 18.04.2026 and produced them before the court for judicial remand and the court remanded the accused to judicial custody till 01.05.2026. The investigation in this case is at the initial stage and the case is pertaining to the corruption charges of demanding and accepting the bribe from the complainant. The conspiracy among the accused and other unknown public servants has to be investigated in detail.

f)The voice specimen samples of accused have to be obtained for the purpose of voice spectrograph examination by CFSL.

The undue advantage for bribe, motive and reward also need to be investigated. If the petitioner/A.1 is enlarged on bail, there is every possibility for tampering with investigation and hence, prayed to dismiss this petition.

4.Heard both sides.

5.Now the point for consideration is whether the petitioner/A1 is entitled for the relief as prayed for?

Point:-

6.In this petition, the petitioner/Accused No.1 sought for an order to release him on bail. The respondent/complainant resisted the petition.

7.It is the contention of the petitioner/A1 that he is innocent of the alleged offence and he did not commit any offence and that this case was foisted. The prosecution alleged that A1 demanded the de facto complainant Rs.50,000/- as bribe to overcome audit objections and later

A1 reduced the amount to Rs.30,000/- and later A1 and A2 reduced the 8 amount to Rs 25,000/-. Basing on complaint, the respondent laid trap on 18.04.2026 and caught A3 while accepting bribe amount. The main contention of petitioner/A1 is that he did not demand and accept bribe from complainant. On the other hand, it is the contention of the respondent that the petitioner/A1 and A2 demanded bribe and it is evident from their phone conversation with de facto complainant and complainant gave bribe amount to A3 on the instructions of A1. The investigation is at nascent stage and that if the petitioner/A1 is released on bail, there is every chance of tampering of evidence.

8.The learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is upright officer and he has no bad history and he did not commit any offence and he was falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the respondent falsely arrested this petitioner without any material.

9.The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that A.1 demanded bribe Rs.50,000/- to overcome audit objections and he reduced the amount to Rs.30,000/- and later A1 and A2 further reduced the amount to Rs.25,000/- and A.3 was caught red handed.

10.As per record, A1 is Branch Manager, Indian Bank,

Narasimharaopet branch, Eluru and he demanded the de facto complainant who is customer of bank Rs.50,000/- as bribe to overcome audit objections and later A1 reduced the amount to Rs.30,000/- and later A1 and A2 reduced the amount to Rs 25,000/- as they already paid the amount to auditor. Basing on complaint, the respondent laid trap on 18.04.2026 and caught A3 while accepting bribe amount. The petitioner and other accused have been in judicial custody since 19.04.2026. The contents of complaint clearly show that A1 demanded bribe amount of

Rs.50,000/- from de facto complainant. Further, phone conversation reveals that A1 and A2 demanded amount to overcome audit 9 objections. Therefore, involvement of this petitioner/A.1 cannot be ruled out. The investigation is in the early stage. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that alleged sections are not applicable to this petitioner as he did not take any amount. As per record, this petitioner demanded amount and on his instructions, amount was given to A3 who was caught red-handedly. The learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that the investigation officer did not follow guidelines observed in Arnesh Kumar’s case, Mihir Rajesh Shah’s case and Prabir

Purkayastha’s case for arrest of the petitioner. As per record,

Investigation Officer noted grounds of arrest in the remand report. In view of stage of investigation and gravity of offence, it is not just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail. In view of these reasons, I hold that the petitioner/A2 is not entitled for the relief as prayed for. This point is answered accordingly.

11.In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.II, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on the 29th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-.K.S.Rama Krishna Rao,

Special Judge for CBI Cases

Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NIL

Sd/-.K.S.Rama Krishna Rao,

Special Judge for CBI Cases

Vijayawada.

Copy to

The Sr. Public Prosecutor, Special Court for CBI Cases, Vijayawada.

1

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES,

VIJAYAWADA

Present:- Sri K.S.Rama Krishna Rao,

Special Judge for CBI Cases,

Vijayawada.

Tuesday, this the 5th day of May, 2026

Crl.M.P.No.1113/2026

Online Crl.M.P.No.4/2026

in

RC No.5(A)/2026 of CBI, ACB, Vishakhapatnam.

Between:

Banavatu Nagu, S/o. Kesya, 39 years, Bank Manager, R/o. D.No.3-148, Ward-4, A.Konduru Mandalam, Repudi Thanda, Krishna, Andhra Pradesh. … Petitioner/A.1 A N D

The State, S.H.O, CBI, Vishakhapatnam, Rep. By its Public Prosecutor. … Respondent/Complainant.

This petition came on 04.05.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri T. Chaitanya Pradeep, Advocate for the Petitioner/A.1 and Senior Public Prosecutor for respondent/complainant; and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

O R D E R

This petition is filed by the petitioner/A1 under section 480 of

BNSS in RC No.5(A)/2026-CBI, ACB, Vishakhapatnam seeking an order to release him on bail.

2.The brief averments of the petition are that:

a)The petitioner was arrested by the respondent on 18.04.2026 in connection with above crime under section 61(2) of BNS 2 and sections 7, 7A of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and he was produced before this court and he was remanded to judicial custody.

Since then he has been in judicial custody. Earlier bail application filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 29.04.2026

b)As per the case of prosecution, the defacto-complainant gave written complaint alleging that he has been sanctioned overdraft against cash credit limit of Rs.50,00,000/- from Indian Bank,

Narasimharaopeta Branch, Eluru and the Bank Manager/A.1 told him that with reference to observation of the Auditor, his account limit will be reduced from 50 lakhs to 20 lakhs or it will be declared Non-Performing

Asset. When the complainant asked for reasons, the Branch

Manager/A.1 told to pay bribe of Rs.50,000/- @ Rs.1,000/- per lakh to continue smooth running of his account. The Bank Manager further pressurized him and finalized the amount to Rs.30,000/-. The complainant told the Branch Manager/A.1 that he was in Rajastan for some reasons and he would talk once he returned to Eluru.

c)On 16.04.2026 the Branch Manager/A.1 again called the complainant and told to meet him regarding the matter. The complainant is not willing to pay the bribe amount as demanded by

Branch Manager/A.1 and he lodged complaint with CBI for taking necessary legal action. The Inspector of police, CBI, ACB,

Vishakhapatnam conducted discreet verification in the presence of independent witness and submitted the report. Verification revealed that Branch Manager and Bank Official in furtherance of criminal conspiracy pressurized the complainant by saying that the complainant done the diversion of funds of sanctioned CC limit and both of them cited the reference that the sale of stock from his shop was in cash and the same got verified the bank official in person visit to his shop.

3

d)Both of them further cited the reference of observation by the Auditor to reduce the CC limit of the complainant from Rs.50 lakh to

Rs.20 lakh and also they demanded Rs.25,000/- from the complainant by saying that they already paid the said amount to the Bank Auditor for not taking any action on the sanctioned CC limit. The Branch Manager told the complainant to come to Bank after lunch to give the bribe money to one of Bank Employee. Basing on the complaint and verification report, the CBI registered case in RC.5(A) for the alleged offences against the accused. On 18.04.2026 a trap was laid and A.1 to

A.3 were arrested.

e)The petitioner/A.1 was falsely implicated in the present crime and did not commit any offence. The written report for registration of the present crime does not disclose the essential ingredients constituting offences alleged against the petitioner. In the absence of any prima facie material attracting the said provisions, the registration of the crime against the petitioner is arbitrary and unsustainable in law.

f)The petitioner strictly followed rules governed by the Cash

Credit Guidelines and the Reserve Bank of India standards for working capital management. The petitioner in his professional capacity was merely communicating these mandatory regulatory requirements to the complainant to ensure the safeguarding of the account and compliance with official banking procedures. The petitioner never demanded or acquired any money or benefit for his gain from the complainant.

g)In the verification memo the petitioner is relying the findings of the auditor that the account at risk of being declared NPA or having its limit slashed by 60% due to Non-compliance with CC guidelines.

The complainant misinterpreted the petitioner’s efforts to safeguard the 4 account and navigate complex post-closing audit requirements as a personal demand for undue advantage. The essential ingredients of

Sec.7 of PC Act are not attracted, as there is no demand for undue advantage for the petitioner’s personal gain and Sec.7A is not applicable as the petitioner did not induce another public servant through corrupt for personal gain. The allegation of Criminal Conspiracy

U/s.61 (2) of BNS is purely presumptive.

h)The primary allegation against the petitioner is built upon an alleged telephonic conversation between the complainant, the bank official (A.2) and the petitioner. It is well settled principle of law that telephonic recordings are considered as weak piece of evidence and are susceptible to tamper or misinterpretation and they cannot by itself form the sole basis in the absence of independent corroboration. The

Hon’ble Supreme Court in several occasions has held that the absence

of a clear demand and acceptance of a bribe directly by the accused, a mere phone conversation especially one that is technically ambiguous is insufficient to justify continued incarceration. As the recovery of the tainted currency was made from a private individual (A.3) and not from the petitioner. As per the remand report all the documentary evidence was seized from the bank and major part of investigation was completed.

i)The petitioner is married and having school going children.

He is the sole bread winner of his entire family. His family depends on his financial and personal support. The petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case. The petitioner is law abiding citizen. He has permanent place of residence and solvent sureties to ensure his presence during investigation, enquiry and trial. No similar bail petition is pending before any court. Hence, the petitioner/A.1 filed this petition.

5

3.The brief averments of the counter filed by the respondent/complainant are that

a)The respondent registered the above case against the petitioner and two others under section 61(2) of BNS and Secs.7 and 7A of PC Act. Complainant is running Vituda Auto Agency. He has been sanctioned OCC limit of Rs.50 lakhs from Indian Bank,

Narasimharao Peta Branch, Eluru for smooth running of day to day business. When the defacto-complainant went to Rajasthan on some work, A.1 contacted the complainant and told that the Auditor has come to the Bank and referred some technical glitches in the loan account, due to which the limit of his account will be reduced from Rs.50 Lakhs to Rs.20 Lakhs or otherwise it will be turned to NPA.

b)When the complainant asked for reasons, the A.1 told him that he has to pay bribe of Rs.50,000/- @ Rs.1,000/- per lakh to continue smooth running of his account and A.1 pressurized the complainant and finalized the bribe amount to Rs.30,000/-. On that the complainant told the A.1 that he was in Rajasthan for some reasons and he would talk once he returned to Eluru. On 16.04.2026 the A.1 again called the complainant and told to meet him regarding the matter. The complainant is not willing to pay the bribe amount as demanded by A.1 he lodged complaint with CBI for taking necessary legal action.

c)The Inspector of police, CBI, ACB, Vishakhapatnam conducted discreet verification in the presence of independent witness and submitted the report. During the verification of the complaint on 18.04.2026, the complainant visited the Indian Bank, Narasimharao peta Branch, Eluru and met A.1. The conversation taken place between

A.1, A.2 and complainant has been recorded in memory card through

Digital Voice Recorder. The conversation reveals that A.1 and A.2 6 demand Rs.25,000/- by reducing it from Rs.30,000/- on the pretext that they had already paid bribe amount of Rs.25,000/- to the Auditor on behalf of complainant. Branch Manager and Bank Official in furtherance of Criminal Conspiracy pressurized the complainant by saying that the complainant done the diversion of funds of sanctioned

CC limit and both of them cited the reference that the sale of stock from his shop was in cash and the same got verified the bank official in person visit to his shop.

d)Both of them further cited the reference of observation by the Auditor to reduce the CC limit of the complainant from Rs.50 lakh to

Rs.20 lakh and also they demanded Rs.25,000/- from the complainant by saying that they already paid the said amount to the Bank Auditor for not taking any action on the sanctioned CC limit. The Branch Manager told the complainant to come to Bank after lunch to give the bribe money to one of Bank Employee. Basing on the complaint and verification report, the CBI registered case in RC.5(A) for the alleged offences against the accused. On 18.04.2026 a trap was laid and A.1 to

A.3 were arrested.

e)The complainant arrested the accused on 18.04.2026 and produced them before the court for judicial remand and the court remanded the accused to judicial custody till 01.05.2026. The investigation in this case is at the initial stage and the case is pertaining to the corruption charges of demanding and accepting the bribe from the complainant. The conspiracy among the accused and other unknown public servants has to be investigated in detail.

f)The voice specimen samples of accused have to be obtained for the purpose of voice spectrograph examination by CFSL.

The undue advantage for bribe, motive and reward also need to be 7 investigated. If the petitioner/A.1 is enlarged on bail, there is every possibility for tampering with investigation and hence, prayed to dismiss this petition.

4.Heard both sides.

5.Now the point for consideration is whether the petitioner/A1 is entitled for the relief as prayed for?

Point:-

6.In this petition, the petitioner/Accused No.1 sought for an order to release him on bail. The respondent/complainant resisted the petition.

7.It is the contention of the petitioner/A1 that he is innocent of the alleged offence and he did not commit any offence and that this case was foisted. The prosecution alleged that A1 demanded the de facto complainant Rs.50,000/- as bribe to overcome audit objections and later

A1 reduced the amount to Rs.30,000/- and later A1 and A2 reduced the amount to Rs 25,000/-. Basing on complaint, the respondent laid trap on 18.04.2026 and caught A3 while accepting bribe amount. The main contention of petitioner/A1 is that he did not demand and accept bribe from complainant. On the other hand, it is the contention of the respondent that the petitioner/A1 and A2 demanded bribe and it is evident from their phone conversation with de facto complainant and complainant gave bribe amount to A3 on the instructions of A1. The investigation is at nascent stage and that if the petitioner/A1 is released on bail, there is every chance of tampering of evidence.

8.As per record, A1 is Branch Manager, Indian Bank,

Narasimharaopet branch, Eluru and he demanded the de facto complainant who is customer of bank Rs.50,000/- as bribe to overcome 8 audit objections and later A1 reduced the amount to Rs.30,000/- and later A1 and A2 reduced the amount to Rs 25,000/- as they already paid the amount to auditor. Basing on complaint, the respondent laid trap on 18.04.2026 and caught A3 while accepting bribe amount. The petitioner and other accused have been in judicial custody since 19.04.2026.

There is no progress in investigation since date of trap. In view of stagnation of investigation and period of remand, it is just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail. In view of these reasons, I hold that the petitioner/A1 is entitled for the relief as prayed for. This point is answered accordingly.

9.In the result, the petition is allowed and the petitioner/A1 shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond for Rs.25,000/- with two sureties for a like sum each in the form of FDR drawn on nationalized bank to the satisfaction of this court.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.II, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on the 5th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- K.S.Rama Krishna Rao,

Special Judge for CBI Cases

Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NIL

Sd/- K.S.Rama Krishna Rao,

Special Judge for CBI Cases

Vijayawada.

Copy to

The Sr. Public Prosecutor, Special Court for CBI Cases, Vijayawada.

1

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES,

VIJAYAWADA

Present:- Sri K.S.Rama Krishna Rao,

Special Judge for CBI Cases,

Vijayawada.

Wednesday, this the 29th day of April, 2026

Crl.M.P.No.1031/2026

Online Crl.M.P.No.2/2026

in

RC No.5(A)/2026 of CBI, ACB, Vishakhapatnam.

Between:

N. Krishna Prasad, S/o.Ramachandra Rao, Hindu, 48 years, R/o. 15- 9/A, Narasimharaopet, Eluru, Eluru District, Andhra Pradesh. … Petitioner/A.3 A N D

CBI, Vishakhapatnam, Rep. by its Inspector of Police, Visakhapatnam. … Respondent/Complainant.

This petition came on 28.04.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Panchadi Mohan Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner/A.3 and Senior Public Prosecutor for respondent/complainant; and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

O R D E R

This petition is filed by the petitioner/A3 under section 480 of

BNSS in RC No.5(A)/2026-CBI, ACB, Vishakhapatnam seeking an order to release him on bail.

2.The brief averments of the petition are that:

a)The petitioner/A.3 was falsely implicated by the complainant/police for the offence under section 61(2) of BNS and sections 7, 7A of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2 2018) basing on the complaint dt; 18.04.2026 given by the defacto- complainant. The respondent/police registered the above case against the accused and arrested him and produced before the court on 19.04.2026 and the court remanded the accused till 01.05.2026

b)The petitioner/A.3 is nothing to do with the alleged offence and innocent of this case. As per the case of prosecution on 18.04.2026 complainant approached the respondent and gave a report by stating that he is running a business in the name and style of M/s. Vituda Auto

Agency. He got sanctioned OCC loan with Rs.50 Lakhs limit from

Indian Bank, Narasimha Rao Peta Branch, Eluru for smooth running of his day to day business. At that juncture, A.1 and A.2 demanded him to pay Rs.50,000/- to them to cover the Audit objections in respect of his

OCC loan limits, and later on, they reduced their demand to

Rs.25,000/-.

c)As the complainant is not willing to pay the said bribe amount to A.1 and A.2, he reported the matter to the respondent/police who ultimately laid trap and caught them in the Bank Premises by following their technical procedure. After that the respondent/police registered the case against the accused and arrested them and remanded to judicial custody.

d)The version of the prosecution is not at all believable, as the petitioner/A.3 is nothing to do with the alleged offence and the petitioner is innocent of the same. He never demanded or accepted the amount directly from the complainant. The petitioner/A.3 is not at all a

Bank Employee and never treated as a Bank Employee.

e)The petitioner is just a Bank Gold Appraiser in the alleged crime located Bank. He is no way concerned with the Bank

Administration and the alleged loan management activities. His role is 3 very limited in the bank. The petitioner never demanded or received the alleged amount. In fact, there is no his name in the FIR. The allegations made in the report are frivolous and vexatious. The petitioner is a law abiding Senior Citizen, doing Goldsmith work and having good reputation in his business filed.

f)The petitioner is ready and willing to furnish sufficient securities to the satisfaction of this court for his due appearance to the future adjournments. Except this bail petition, no similar bail petition is pending before any court. Hence, the petitioner/A.3 filed this petition.

3.The brief averments of the counter filed by the respondent/complainant are that

a)The respondent registered the above case against the petitioner and two others under section 61(2) of BNS and Secs.7 and 7A of PC Act. Complainant is running Vituda Auto Agency. He has been sanctioned OCC limit of Rs.50 lakhs from Indian Bank,

Narasimharao Peta Branch, Eluru for smooth running of day to day business. When the defacto-complainant went to Rajasthan on some work, A.1 contacted the complainant and told that the Auditor has come to the Bank and referred some technical glitches in the loan account, due to which the limit of his account will be reduced from Rs.50 Lakhs to Rs.20 Lakhs or otherwise it will be turned to NPA.

b)When the complainant asked for reasons, the A.1 told him that he has to pay bribe of Rs.50,000/- @ Rs.1,000/- per lakh to continue smooth running of his account and A.1 pressurized the complainant and finalized the bribe amount to Rs.30,000/-. On that the complainant told the A.1 that he was in Rajasthan for some reasons and he would talk once he returned to Eluru. On 16.04.2026 the A.1 again called the complainant and told to meet him regarding the matter. The 4 complainant is not willing to pay the bribe amount as demanded by A.1 he lodged complaint with CBI for taking necessary legal action.

c)The Inspector of police, CBI, ACB, Vishakhapatnam conducted discreet verification in the presence of independent witness and submitted the report. During the verification of the complaint on 18.04.2026, the complainant visited the Indian Bank, Narasimharao peta Branch, Eluru and met A.1. The conversation taken place between

A.1, A.2 and complainant has been recorded in memory card through

Digital Voice Recorder. The conversation reveals that A.1 and A.2 demanded Rs.25,000/- by reducing it from Rs.30,000/- on the pretext that they had already paid bribe amount of Rs.25,000/- to the Auditor on behalf of complainant. Branch Manager and Bank Official in furtherance of criminal conspiracy pressurized the complainant by saying that the complainant done the diversion of funds of sanctioned CC limit and both of them cited the reference that the sale of stock from his shop was in cash and the same got verified the bank official in person visit to his shop.

d)Both of them further cited the reference of observation by the Auditor to reduce the CC limit of the complainant from Rs.50 lakh to

Rs.20 lakh and also they demanded Rs.25,000/- from the complainant by saying that they already paid the said amount to the Bank Auditor for not taking any action on the sanctioned CC limit. The Branch Manager told the complainant to come to Bank after lunch to give the bribe money to one of Bank Employee. Basing on the complaint and verification report, the CBI registered case in RC.5(A) for the alleged offences against the accused. On 18.04.2026 a trap was laid and A.1 to

A.3 were arrested.

5

e)The complainant arrested the accused on 18.04.2026 and produced them before the court for judicial remand and the court remanded the accused to judicial custody till 01.05.2026. The investigation in this case is at the initial stage and the case is pertaining to the corruption charges of demanding and accepting the bribe from the complainant. The conspiracy among the accused and other unknown public servants has to be investigated in detail.

f)The voice specimen samples of accused have to be obtained for the purpose of voice spectrograph examination by CFSL.

The undue advantage for bribe, motive and reward also need to be investigated. Investigation is at early stage. If the petitioner/A.3 is enlarged on bail, there is every possibility for tampering with investigation and hence, prayed to dismiss this petition.

4.Heard both sides.

5.Now the point for consideration is whether the petitioner/A3 is entitled for the relief as prayed for?

Point:-

6.In this petition, the petitioner/Accused No.3 sought for an order to release him on bail. The respondent/complainant resisted the petition.

7.It is the contention of the petitioner/A3 that he is innocent of the alleged offence and he did not commit any offence and that this case was foisted. The prosecution alleged that A1 demanded the de facto complainant Rs.50,000/- as bribe to overcome audit objections and later

A1 reduced the amount to Rs.30,000/- and later A1 and A2 reduced the amount to Rs 25,000/-. Basing on complaint, the respondent laid trap on 18.04.2026 and caught the petitioner/A3 while accepting bribe amount.

The main contention of petitioner/A3 is that he is not bank employee 6 and he is gold appraiser and he is nothing to do with this case. On the other hand, it is the contention of the respondent that the A1 and A2 demanded bribe and it is evident from their phone conversation with de facto complainant and complainant gave bribe amount to this petitioner/A3 on the instructions of A1 and this petitioner/A3 was caught while accepting bribe. The investigation is at nascent stage and that if the petitioner/A3 is released on bail, there is every chance of tampering of evidence.

8.The learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is not bank employee and he did not commit any offence and he was falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the respondent falsely arrested this petitioner though his name is not there in the FIR.

9.The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that A.1 demanded bribe Rs.50,000/- to overcome audit objections and he reduced the amount to Rs.30,000/- and later A1 and A2 further reduced the amount to Rs.25,000/- and this petitioner/A.3 was caught red handed while accepting bribe amount.

10.As per record, A1 demanded the de facto complainant

Rs.50,000/- as bribe to overcome audit objections and later A1 reduced the amount to Rs.30,000/- and later A1 and A2 reduced the amount to

Rs 25,000/- as they already paid the amount to auditor. Basing on complaint, the respondent laid trap on 18.04.2026 and caught this petitioner/A3 while accepting bribe amount. The contents of post-trap proceedings clearly show that A3 accepted bribe amount of Rs.25,000/- from de facto complainant. Therefore, involvement of this petitioner/A.3 cannot be ruled out. It is no matter that his name is not there in FIR.

7

The investigation is in the early stage. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that alleged sections are not applicable to this petitioner as he is not bank employee and he did not demand any amount. As per record, this petitioner is panelled gold appraiser of bank and he received the amount on the instructions of A1, Bank Manager and this petitioner was caught red-handed. The learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that the investigation officer did not follow guidelines observed in Arnesh Kumar’s case, Mihir Rajesh Shah’s case and Prabir Purkayastha’s case for arrest of the petitioner. As per record,

Investigation Officer noted grounds of arrest in the remand report. In view of early stage of investigation and gravity of offence, it is not just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail. In view of these reasons, I hold that the petitioner/A3 is not entitled for the relief as prayed for.

This point is answered accordingly.

11.In the result, petition is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.II, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on the 29th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-.K.S.Rama Krishna Rao,

Special Judge for CBI Cases

Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NIL

Sd/-.K.S.Rama Krishna Rao,

Special Judge for CBI Cases

Vijayawada.

Copy to

The Sr. Public Prosecutor, Special Court for CBI Cases, Vijayawada.

1

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES,

VIJAYAWADA

Present:- Sri K.S.Rama Krishna Rao,

Special Judge for CBI Cases,

Vijayawada.

Tuesday, this the 5th day of May, 2026

Crl.M.P.No.1114/2026

Online Crl.M.P.No.5/2026

in

RC No.5(A)/2026 of CBI, ACB, Vishakhapatnam.

Between:

Annumalasetty N. Kumar, S/o. Sh. A.N. Uday Kumar, 42 years, Customer Service Associate, Indian Bank, Narasimharaopet Branch, Eluru, R/o. D.No.17-1/59, Road No.6, Indraprastha, Vatluru, Eluru District, Andhra Pradesh. … Petitioner/A.2 A N D

The State, CBI,, Rep. By its Inspector of Police, Vishakhapatnam. … Respondent/Complainant.

This petition came on 04.05.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri A. Murali Krishna, Advocate for the Petitioner/A.2 and Senior Public Prosecutor for respondent/complainant; and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

O R D E R

This petition is filed by the petitioner/A2 under section 480 and 483 of BNSS in RC No.5(A)/2026-CBI, ACB, Vishakhapatnam, seeking an order to release him on bail.

2.The brief averments of the petition are that:

a)The petitioner was falsely implicated as A.2 in the above case for the alleged commission of offence under section 61(2) of BNS 2 and sections 7, 7A of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 basing on the written complaint lodged by the complainant. Earlier bail application filed by the petitioner vide Crl.M.P.No.1035/2026 was dismissed on 29.04.2026.

b)As per the case of prosecution, the defacto-complainant went to Rajasthan for some work and meanwhile A.1 contacted him and told that the Auditor has come to the Bank and referred some Technical glitches, due to which the limit of his account will be reduced from Rs.50 lakh to Rs.20 lakh or it will be turned NPA and when the complainant asked for reasons, A.1 told that he has to pay bribe of Rs.50,000/- @

Rs.1000/- per lakh to continue smooth running of his account and that

A.1 further pressurized him and finalized the bribe amount to

Rs.30,000/- and that the complainant would talk once he returned to

Eluru.

c)On 16.04.2026 the Branch Manager/A.1 again called the complainant and told to meet him regarding the matter and that the complainant was unwilling to pay the bribe amount as demanded by

Branch Manager/A.1 he lodged written complaint. The respondent/police arrested and produced the petitioner/A.2 on 19.04.2026 and he was remanded to judicial custody till 01.05.2026.

d)The petitioner/A.2 is nothing to do with the alleged offences and he was falsely implicated in the above case by the respondent authorities only for statistical purpose. As per the recitals of the remand report, it clearly speaks about the lacunas in it so the question of implicating incriminating material against A.2 asking bribe does not arise, as such the section was not attracted to the alleged commission 3 of offence. The petitioner/A.2 rendered services in Naval Department and after taking retirement he joined in Indian Bank as Customer

Service Associate, which is crystal clear that he acted as only translator, but he has no way connected with the issue of the complainant.

e)The petitioner is having permanent avocation and abode, the question of absconding on bail does not arise. He has not taken any bribe and demanded the complainant. He transcribed the language from Hindi to Telugu only. The respondent authorities examined material witnesses and recorded their statements, as such there is no question of tempering the witnesses and the authorities investigated the case at length except filing of charge sheet.

f)The petitioner is having wife, children and old aged parents and the petitioner is only person to look after the welfare and well being of his family members. There is no Iota of truth and there are no ingredients against A.2 in registering the above case. There is no evidence to make out a prima facie case against the petitioner and the mere allegation is not sufficient to implicate him in this case.

g)The petitioner is ready and willing to furnish solvent sureties to the satisfaction of this court for his due appearance as and when required his presence. The petitioner is ready to prove his innocence at the time of trial and obey any of the conditions imposed by the court in the event of granting bail to him. The petitioner undertakes that he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to court or to any police officer as such the question of jumping bail does not arise. No similar bail petition is 4 pending before any court. The remand period of 14 days was completed on 01.05.2026. Hence, the petitioner/A.2 filed this petition.

3.The brief averments of the counter filed by the respondent/complainant are that

a)The respondent registered the above case against the petitioner and two others under section 61(2) of BNS and Secs.7 and 7A of PC Act. Complainant is running Vituda Auto Agency. He has been sanctioned OCC limit of Rs.50 lakhs from Indian Bank,

Narasimharao Peta Branch, Eluru for smooth running of day to day business. When the defacto-complainant went to Rajasthan on some work, A.1 contacted the complainant and told that the Auditor has come to the Bank and referred some technical glitches in the loan account, due to which the limit of his account will be reduced from Rs.50 Lakhs to Rs.20 Lakhs or otherwise it will be turned to NPA.

b)When the complainant asked for reasons, the A.1 told him that he has to pay bribe of Rs.50,000/- @ Rs.1,000/- per lakh to continue smooth running of his account and A.1 pressurized the complainant and finalized the bribe amount to Rs.30,000/-. On that the complainant told the A.1 that he was in Rajasthan for some reasons and he would talk once he returned to Eluru. On 16.04.2026 the A.1 again called the complainant and told to meet him regarding the matter. The complainant is not willing to pay the bribe amount as demanded by A.1 he lodged complaint with CBI for taking necessary legal action.

c)The Inspector of police, CBI, ACB, Vishakhapatnam conducted discreet verification in the presence of independent witness and submitted the report. During the verification of the complaint on 18.04.2026, the complainant visited the Indian Bank, Narasimharao 5 peta Branch, Eluru and met A.1. The conversation taken place between

A.1, A.2 and complainant has been recorded in memory card through

Digital Voice Recorder. The conversation reveals that A.1 and A.2 demand Rs.25,000/- by reducing it from Rs.30,000/- on the pretext that they had already paid bribe amount of Rs.25,000/- to the Auditor on behalf of complainant. Branch Manager and Bank Official in furtherance of criminal conspiracy pressurized the complainant by saying that the complainant done the diversion of funds of sanctioned CC limit and both of them cited the reference that the sale of stock from his shop was in cash and the same got verified the bank official in person visit to his shop.

d)Both of them further cited the reference of observation by the Auditor to reduce the CC limit of the complainant from Rs.50 lakh to

Rs.20 lakh and also they demanded Rs.25,000/- from the complainant by saying that they already paid the said amount to the Bank Auditor for not taking any action on the sanctioned CC limit. The Branch Manager told the complainant to come to Bank after lunch to give the bribe money to one of Bank Employee. Basing on the complaint and verification report, the CBI registered case in RC.5(A) for the alleged offences against the accused. On 18.04.2026 a trap was laid and A.1 to

A.3 were arrested.

e)The complainant arrested the accused on 18.04.2026 and produced them before the court for judicial remand and the court remanded the accused for judicial custody till 01.05.2026. The investigation in this case is at the initial stage and the case is pertaining to the corruption charges of demanding and accepting the bribe from the complainant. The conspiracy among the accused and other unknown public servants has to be investigated in detail.

6

f)The voice specimen samples of accused have to be obtained for the purpose of voice spectrograph examination by CFSL.

The undue advantage for bribe, motive and reward also need to be investigated. Investigation is at early stage. If the petitioner/A.2 is enlarged on bail, there is every possibility for tampering with investigation and hence, prayed to dismiss this petition.

4.Heard both sides.

5.Now the point for consideration is whether the petitioner/A2 is entitled for the relief as prayed for? Point:-

6.In this petition, the petitioner/Accused No.2 sought for an order to release him on bail. The respondent/complainant resisted the petition.

7.It is the contention of the petitioner/A2 that he is innocent of the alleged offence and he did not commit any offence and that this case was foisted. The prosecution alleged that A1 demanded the de facto complainant Rs.50,000/- as bribe to overcome audit objections and later

A1 reduced the amount to Rs.30,000/- and this petitioner and A1 reduced the amount to Rs 25,000/-. Basing on complaint, the respondent laid trap on 18.04.2026 and caught A3 while accepting bribe amount. The main contention of petitioner/A2 is that he did not demand and accept bribe from complainant. On the other hand, it is the contention of the respondent that the petitioner/A2 and A1 demanded bribe and it is evident from their phone conversation with de facto complainant and complainant gave bribe amount to A3 on the instructions of A1. The investigation is at nascent stage and that if the petitioner/A2 is released on bail, there is every chance of tampering of evidence.

7

8.As per record, petitioner/A2 is bank employee, Indian Bank,

Narasimharaopet branch, Eluru and he and bank Manager demanded bribe from the de facto complainant who is customer of bank to overcome audit objections and as they already paid the amount to auditor. Basing on complaint, the respondent laid trap on 18.04.2026 and caught A3 while accepting bribe amount. The petitioner and other accused have been in judicial custody since 19.04.2026. There is no progress in investigation since date of trap. In view of stagnation of investigation and period of remand, it is just and proper to enlarge the petitioner/A2 on bail. In view of these reasons, I hold that the petitioner/A2 is entitled for the relief as prayed for. This point is answered accordingly.

9.In the result, the petition is allowed and the petitioner/A2 shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond for Rs.25,000/- with two sureties for a like sum each in the form of FDR drawn on nationalized bank to the satisfaction of this court.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.II, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on the 5th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- K.S.Rama Krishna Rao,

Special Judge for CBI Cases

Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NIL

Sd/- K.S.Rama Krishna Rao,

Special Judge for CBI Cases

Vijayawada.

Copy to

The Sr. Public Prosecutor, Special Court for CBI Cases, Vijayawada.

1

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES,

VIJAYAWADA

Present:- Sri K.S.Rama Krishna Rao,

Special Judge for CBI Cases,

Vijayawada.

Tuesday, this the 5th day of May, 2026

Crl.M.P.No.1115/2026

Online Crl.M.P.No.6/2026

in

RC No.5(A)/2026 of CBI, ACB, Vishakhapatnam.

Between:

N. Krishna Prasad, S/o.Ramachandra Rao, Gold Appraiser, 48 years, R/o.15-9/A, Narasimharaopet, Eluru, Eluru District, Andhra Pradesh. … Petitioner/A.3 A N D

CBI, Vishakhapatnam, Rep. by its Inspector of Police, Visakhapatnam. … Respondent/Complainant.

This petition came on 04.05.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Panchadi Mohan Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner/A.3 and Senior Public Prosecutor for respondent/complainant; and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

O R D E R

This petition is filed by the petitioner/A3 under section 480 of

BNSS in RC No.5(A)/2026-CBI, ACB, Vishakhapatnam seeking an order to release him on bail.

2.The brief averments of the petition are that:

a)The petitioner/A.3 was falsely implicated by the complainant/police for the offence under section 61(2) of BNS and 2 sections 7, 7A of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) basing on the complaint dt; 18.04.2026 given by the defacto- complainant. The respondent/police registered the above case against the accused and arrested him and produced before the court on 19.04.2026 and the court remanded the accused till 01.05.2026.

b)The petitioner/A.3 is nothing to do with the alleged offence and innocent of this case. As per the case of prosecution on 18.04.2026 complainant approached the respondent and gave a report by stating that he is running a business in the name and style of M/s. Vituda Auto

Agency. He got sanctioned OCC loan with Rs.50 Lakhs limit from

Indian Bank, Narasimha Rao Peta Branch, Eluru for smooth running of his day to day business. At that juncture, A.1 and A.2 demanded him to pay Rs.50,000/- to them to cover the Audit objections in respect of his

OCC loan limits, and later on, they reduced their demand to

Rs.25,000/-.

c)As the complainant is not willing to pay the said bribe amount to A.1 and A.2, he reported the matter to the respondent/police who ultimately laid trap and caught them in the Bank Premises by following their technical procedure. After that the respondent/police registered the case against the accused and arrested them and remanded to judicial custody.

d)The version of the prosecution is not at all believable, as the petitioner/A.3 is nothing to do with the alleged offence and the petitioner is innocent of the same. He never demanded or accepted the amount directly from the complainant. The petitioner/A.3 is not at all a

Bank Employee and never treated as a Bank Employee.

3

e)The petitioner is just a Bank Gold Appraiser in the alleged crime located Bank. He is no way concerned with the Bank

Administration and the alleged loan management activities. His role is very limited in the bank. The petitioner never demanded or received the alleged amount. In fact, there is no his name in the FIR. The allegations made in the report are frivolous and vexatious. The petitioner is a law abiding Senior Citizen, doing Goldsmith work and having good reputation in his business filed.

f)The petitioner is ready and willing to furnish sufficient securities to the satisfaction of this court for his due appearance to the future adjournments. Earlier bail application filed by the petitioner vide

Crl.M.P.No.1031/2026 was dismissed on 29.04.2026. Except this bail

petition, no similar bail petition is pending before any court. Hence, the petitioner/A.3 filed this petition.

3.The brief averments of the counter filed by the respondent/complainant are that

a)The respondent registered the above case against the petitioner and two others under section 61(2) of BNS and Secs.7 and 7A of PC Act. Complainant is running Vituda Auto Agency. He has been sanctioned OCC limit of Rs.50 lakhs from Indian Bank,

Narasimharao Peta Branch, Eluru for smooth running of day to day business. When the defacto-complainant went to Rajasthan on some work, A.1 contacted the complainant and told that the Auditor has come to the Bank and referred some technical glitches in the loan account, due to which the limit of his account will be reduced from Rs.50 Lakhs to Rs.20 Lakhs or otherwise it will be turned to NPA.

4

b)When the complainant asked for reasons, the A.1 told him that he has to pay bribe of Rs.50,000/- @ Rs.1,000/- per lakh to continue smooth running of his account and A.1 pressurized the complainant and finalized the bribe amount to Rs.30,000/-. On that the complainant told the A.1 that he was in Rajasthan for some reasons and he would talk once he returned to Eluru. On 16.04.2026 the A.1 again called the complainant and told to meet him regarding the matter. The complainant is not willing to pay the bribe amount as demanded by A.1 he lodged complaint with CBI for taking necessary legal action.

c)The Inspector of police, CBI, ACB, Vishakhapatnam conducted discreet verification in the presence of independent witness and submitted the report. During the verification of the complaint on 18.04.2026, the complainant visited the Indian Bank, Narasimharao peta Branch, Eluru and met A.1. The conversation taken place between

A.1, A.2 and complainant has been recorded in memory card through

Digital Voice Recorder. The conversation reveals that A.1 and A.2 demanded Rs.25,000/- by reducing it from Rs.30,000/- on the pretext that they had already paid bribe amount of Rs.25,000/- to the Auditor on behalf of complainant. Branch Manager and Bank Official in furtherance of criminal conspiracy pressurized the complainant by saying that the complainant done the diversion of funds of sanctioned CC limit and both of them cited the reference that the sale of stock from his shop was in cash and the same got verified the bank official in person visit to his shop.

d)Both of them further cited the reference of observation by the Auditor to reduce the CC limit of the complainant from Rs.50 lakh to

Rs.20 lakh and also they demanded Rs.25,000/- from the complainant by saying that they already paid the said amount to the Bank Auditor for 5 not taking any action on the sanctioned CC limit. The Branch Manager told the complainant to come to Bank after lunch to give the bribe money to one of Bank Employee. Basing on the complaint and verification report, the CBI registered case in RC.5(A) for the alleged offences against the accused. On 18.04.2026 a trap was laid and A.1 to

A.3 were arrested.

e)The complainant arrested the accused on 18.04.2026 and produced them before the court for judicial remand and the court remanded the accused to judicial custody till 01.05.2026. The investigation in this case is at the initial stage and the case is pertaining to the corruption charges of demanding and accepting the bribe from the complainant. The conspiracy among the accused and other unknown public servants has to be investigated in detail.

f)The voice specimen samples of accused have to be obtained for the purpose of voice spectrograph examination by CFSL.

The undue advantage for bribe, motive and reward also need to be investigated. Investigation is at early stage. If the petitioner/A.3 is enlarged on bail, there is every possibility for tampering with investigation and hence, prayed to dismiss this petition.

4.Heard both sides.

5.Now the point for consideration is whether the petitioner/A3 is entitled for the relief as prayed for?

Point:-

6.In this petition, the petitioner/Accused No.3 sought for an order to release him on bail. The respondent/complainant resisted the petition.

7.It is the contention of the petitioner/A3 that he is innocent of the alleged offence and he did not commit any offence and that this case 6 was foisted. The prosecution alleged that A1 demanded the de facto complainant Rs.50,000/- as bribe to overcome audit objections and later

A1 reduced the amount to Rs.30,000/- and later A1 and A2 reduced the amount to Rs 25,000/-. Basing on complaint, the respondent laid trap on 18.04.2026 and caught the petitioner/A3 while accepting bribe amount.

The main contention of petitioner/A3 is that he is not bank employee and he is gold appraiser and he is nothing to do with this case. On the other hand, it is the contention of the respondent that the A1 and A2 demanded bribe and it is evident from their phone conversation with de facto complainant and complainant gave bribe amount to this petitioner/A3 on the instructions of A1 and this petitioner/A3 was caught while accepting bribe. The investigation is at nascent stage and that if the petitioner/A3 is released on bail, there is every chance of tampering of evidence.

8.As per record, petitioner/A3 is gold appraiser, Indian Bank,

Narasimharaopet branch, Eluru and on the instructions of A1, Manager he accepted bribe of Rs.25,000/- from the de facto complainant who is customer of bank to overcome audit objections. Basing on complaint, the respondent laid trap on 18.04.2026 and caught this petitioner/A3 while accepting bribe amount. The petitioner and other accused have been in judicial custody since 19.04.2026. There is no progress in investigation since date of trap. In view of stagnation of investigation and period of remand, it is just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail. In view of these reasons, I hold that the petitioner/A3 is entitled for the relief as prayed for. This point is answered accordingly.

9.In the result, the petition is allowed and the petitioner/A3 shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond for Rs.25,000/- with two 7 sureties for a like sum each in the form of FDR drawn on nationalized bank to the satisfaction of this court.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.II, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on the 5th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- K.S.Rama Krishna Rao,

Special Judge for CBI Cases

Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NIL

Sd/- K.S.Rama Krishna Rao,

Special Judge for CBI Cases

Vijayawada.

Copy to

The Sr. Public Prosecutor, Special Court for CBI Cases, Vijayawada.