JUDGMENT : SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA, J. 1. Heard Mr. Diganta Das, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. Kumari, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. 2. This application has been preferred by the petitioner namely, Tushar Kasera under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 and under Section 438 of CrPC, 1973, praying for pre-arrest bail, apprehending arrest in connection with CBI/AC-II/New Delhi P.S. Case No. RC2172025A0019, dated 18.08.2025 under Sections 7,9,10 and 12 of the P.C. Act read with Section 61(2) of the BNS, 2023. 3 . It appears from the record that one Prayas Chakraborty, Deputy General Manager(Material), Duliajan, Oil India Limited was arrested in connection with RC.2172025A0012/AC-II/New Delhi on the allegation of accepting bribe from a Contractor of Oil India Limited and in course of his interrogation, it was revealed that he had received two gold chains from the petitioner on 12.04.2025 at Tinsukia as illegal gratification for favoring the firm namely, M/s Industrial Trade and Agencies owned by Sri Pradeep Kumar Kasera, father of the petitioner, against a tender worth Rs. 3 crores for the supply of Genset awarded to the said firm, which was processed by accused Prayas Chakraborty. The two gold chains had been recovered and seized by the CBI on 03.05.2025 in the presence of the said Prayas Chakraborty and independent witnesses. 4. It is further stated in the FIR that recorded intercepted call conversations between Prayas Chakraborty and the present petitioner as well as other documents collected during the investigation has prima facie established that the said Prayas Chakraborty had demanded illegal gratification from the petitioner in lieu of the concerned tender, the value of which is Rs. 3 crores. 5 . Mr. 3 crores. 5 . Mr. D.K. Das, learned, Senior Counsel representing the petitioner, though had initially sought to make out a case of the present FIR being a second FIR in respect of the same allegations, had subsequently emphasized on the fact that pursuant to interim protection granted by this Court, the petitioner had duly appeared before the I.O within the time fixed by the Court, which shows his intention to cooperate with the investigation and therefore, the only question to be considered is whether his custodial interrogation is necessary, more so, in view of the fact that the gold chains in question have admittedly been recovered as also the voucher in respect of the said gold chains and therefore, the investigation with regard to the specific allegation against the petitioner appears to be over. On the other hand, learned counsel representing CBI submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much necessary to unearth the larger conspiracy in the absence of which effective interrogation of the petitioner may not be possible. 6 . In this regard, learned counsel for CBI has referred to a number of authorities including the case of Devinder Kumar Bansal Vs. State of Punjab , reported in 2025 INSC 320 wherein the Apex Court has observed as follows:- "23. The presumption of innocence, by itself, cannot be the 11 sole consideration for grant of anticipatory bail. The presumption of innocence is one of the considerations, which the court should keep in mind while considering the plea for anticipatory bail. The salutary rule is to balance the cause of the accused and the cause of public justice. Over solicitous homage to the accused's liberty can, sometimes, defeat the cause of public justice. 24. If liberty is to be denied to an accused to ensure corruption free society, then the courts should not hesitate in denying such liberty. Where overwhelming considerations in the nature aforesaid require denial of anticipatory bail, it has to be denied. It is altogether a different thing to say that once the investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed, the court may consider to grant regular bail to a public servant -accused of indulging in corruption." 7. The above decision as well as the decision in CBI Vs. It is altogether a different thing to say that once the investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed, the court may consider to grant regular bail to a public servant -accused of indulging in corruption." 7. The above decision as well as the decision in CBI Vs. Santosh Karnani & Another reported in 2023 INSC 380 relate to grant of pre-arrest bail to a public servant, which the petitioner is not. 8. Learned counsel for CBI has also referred to the decision in Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Santos Karnani & Another reported in 2023 INSC 380 , wherein the Apex Court has referred to its earlier decision in State represented by the CBI Vs. Anil Sharma reported in (1997) 7 SCC 187 , wherein it was held as follows:- “We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconded with a favorable order under Section 438 of the code. In a case like this, effective interrogation of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful information and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce it to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The court has to presume that responsible Police Officers would conduct themselves in the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders. 9. In course of her argument, learned counsel for the CBI has relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. Central Bureau of investigation reported in (2013) 7 SCC 439 where it was observed that economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail as they involve deep rooted conspiracies causing huge loss of public funds affecting the economy of the country and thereby causing serious threat to the financial health of the country. To the same effect are the decisions of the Apex Court in Serious Fraud Investigation Office Vs. Aditya Sarda , reported in (2025) INSC 447 and Tarun Kumar Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement , (2023) INSC 1006 relied upon by learned counsel for CBI. The learned counsel has also relied upon the decision of The Apex Court in Ramesh Bhavan Rathod Vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwan a reported in (2021) 6 SCC 230 which dealt with the question of parity with co-accused. 10. Learned counsel for the CBI has further submitted that after his first appearance pursuant to interim protection granted by this Court, the I.O has issued notice to him for appearance, but the said notice has been returned unserved with the postal remark that no such address is found and in this context, it is submitted that the petitioner is not cooperating with the further investigation of the case. 11 . I have given my due consideration to the rival submissions. 12. The law on grant of anticipatory ball has been summed-up by the Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra , reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694 , after due deliberation on the parameters evolved by the Constitution Bench in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab , reported in (1980) 2 SCC 565 . The Apex Court held thus: "112. The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with anticipatory bail: (1) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made; 00 The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a court in respect of any cognizable offence; 110 The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice: (iv) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or other offences; (v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her, (vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people; (vil The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which the accused is implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over-implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern; (vii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory ball, a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused; (ix) The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; (x) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail." 13 . As far as the nature and gravity of the accusation and the role of the accused is concerned, as already indicated here in before, it is alleged that the accused gave two gold chains to the main accused Public Servant for official favors in the matter of award of a contract. With regard to the antecedents, there is no record of any previous conviction or imprisonment of the petitioner. 14. The possibility of the applicant fleeing from justice can be taken care of by imposing suitable conditions and at present, there is no material to suggest that the petitioner would repeat similar offenses or other offenses. 15 . On the basis of the material available on record, it cannot be said that the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him in view of the fact that the gold chains have been recovered by the CBI from the Public Servant concerned as well as the voucher thereof from the petitioner, but the present cannot be said to be a case of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people. There is of course, no cavil with the propositions of law as submitted by learned CBI counsel and which have been already laid down by the Apex Court in a number of decisions, some of which have been referred to by learned counsel for CBI. 16. What is however now required to be considered is that whether the further custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. 17 . As already stated hereinbefore, the Investigating Agency has already recovered the two gold chains along with the voucher in question and going by the material available on record, that is the only allegation against the petitioner, i.e. he had given the said two gold chains as bribe to the accused Public Servant in return for official favors. Although learned counsel for CBI has harped much on the aspect of larger conspiracy which is required to be unearthed, there is no such material available on record indicating any larger conspiracy beyond the single transaction between the petitioner and the accused Public Servant referred to hereinbefore and which is the subject matter of the present FIR. 18 . Although conceivably custodial interrogation is more effective in eliciting answers from the person in custody then when he is questioned under the protection of an order of the Court, in the absence of any material indicating any other offense or a larger conspiracy, the privilege of pre-arrest bail cannot be denied to the petitioner on the mere expectation that his custodial interrogation may allow the I.O to elicit some more material in that regard particularly having regard to the fact that the investigation appears to be largely over as far as the existing allegation against the present petitioner is concerned, by way of recovery of the two gold chains and voucher in the presence of independent witnesses and in the considered opinion of the Court, having regard to all the facts and circumstances including the nature and gravity of the offense, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner appears to be unwarranted. 19. In view of the above discussion, the prayer for pre-arrest bail is allowed. 19. In view of the above discussion, the prayer for pre-arrest bail is allowed. The order of interim pre-arrest bail dated 03.12.2025 is hereby made absolute subject to the following conditions: (a) that the petitioner shall surrender his passport to the learned Special Judge, CBI, Assam, Guwahati, if the same is not yet seized by the CBI or not surrendered before the Special Judge, CBI, Assam, Guwahati; (b) that the petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation of the instant case by CBI and shall furnish his full and complete address, where he can be served with any notice by the I.O within a period of seven days from today in writing. (c) that the petitioner shall make himself available before the investigating CBI as and when called for by the CBI; (d) that the petitioner shall not try to tamper or hamper with the investigation of the CBI in the instant case, in whatsoever manner. 20 . The petition stands disposed of accordingly.